Govardhan Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Menon, J.—The only grievance of the petitioners is that the benefit of second kramonnati has not been extended to the petitioners and certain recoveries have been ordered against them on account of cancellation of orders of Krammonati. It is contended that the benefit of krammonati as was extended by the State Government was squarely applicable in the case of the petitioners and this was done. The benefit was extended to them, but later on saying that such a Circular is not applicable, recovery has been ordered and, therefore, they are required to approach this Court. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Vajra Sen Jain Vs. The State of M.P. & Others [Writ Petition No. 824/2004 (s)] decided on 15.9.2009, by Gwalior Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that such a benefit was not available to the petitioners in view of certain instructions issued and in view of those instructions, because there is a scheme of grant of higher pay scale prescribed in the statutory Service Rules, the benefit of krammonati Scheme is not extended to the petitioners. This being so, the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

After due consideration of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely considered and decided by this Court in the case of Vajra Sen Jain (supra). This Court has categorically held that if a Scheme was made for upgradation in the pay scale, that would be only on account of stagnation on one post for a long time and even if the scheme of grant of higher pay scale is made, it cannot be assumed that the benefit of krammonati would not be applicable. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , this Court has already held that no such recovery can be made from the person concerned. The operative part of the order passed by this Court in the case of Vajra Sen Jain (supra) in paragraph 7 reads thus:-

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to revise the pay scale of the petitioner by taking into account the first upgradation granted to the petitioner vide order dated 25.8.1984 with effect from 1.4.1981 and also after considering the case of the petitioner for Second Time Bound Upgradation under the Time Bound Upgradation Scheme dated 13.7.1999 and 19.4.1999, the respondents shall fix the salary of the petitioner notionally and shall thereafter pay pension, gratuity and other terminal dues to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Considering the aforesaid, since the controversy involved in the present petition has been put to at rest by this Court by passing the order in the case of Vajra Sen Jain (supra) and it has been pointed out by the respondents that such order passed by this Court has not been set aside or interfered by any higher forum, the petitioners are also entitled to the same benefit.

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The orders of recovery are hereby quashed. The petitioners will be entitled to the benefit of Second Krammonati from the date it was granted to them and, accordingly, will further be entitled to the revision of their pay and payment of all arrears of salary in case their salary is reduced. Let this exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Petition stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid. There shall be no order as to costs.

c.c. as per rules.