Om Prakash Khare vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2007 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the claim of the petitioners for seeking Second Kramonnati has been withdrawn.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order impugned dated 15.05.2007 in this petition has already been quashed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Asati and others vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P. No.7170/2007. It is stated that since the petition of similarly situated persons, namely Jagdish Prasad Asati and others, has already been allowed and the order dated 15.05.2007 has already been quashed, the similar benefit may be extended to the present petitioners also.

In the case of Jagdish Prasad Asati (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order:-

"The petitioners' contention is that they were appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.90-170, later on they were promoted as Upper Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.195-300 and subsequently promoted to the post of Accountant in the pay scale of Rs.650-900. They were granted the benefit of kramonnati vide order dated 05.11.2004 in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 with effect from 19.04.1999 keeping in view the policy decision taken by the State Government to grant upgradation in the pay scale pursuant to the scheme dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999.

The facts of the case reveal that the impugned order has been passed by the respondents holding that the petitioners have already received three upgradation while in service as they were promoted from LDC to UDC and UDC to Accountant including the benefit of kramonnati granted to them.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before this Court the pay-scale of UDC and Accountant was unified with effect from 01.01.1996 and, therefore, the respondents could not have been taken into account the upgradation of pay scale while the petitioners were promoted to UDC to Accountant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset has drawn attention of this Court towards a judgment delivered by this Court in the case of identically placed employee of this Court i.e. Nathulal Verma vs. State of M.P. & others, 2010(4) MPHT 466.

In the aforesaid judgment, the similar controversy was involved in respect of similar department. Paragraphs 2 to 10 of the aforesaid judgment read as under:-

"(2) Briefly stated the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 3-4-1976 (Annexure P-2) in the pay scale of Rs. 169-300/-(revised Rs. 950-1530/-). He was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk vide order dated 11 -3-1982 (Annexure P-3) in the pay scale of Rs.195-330/- revised Rs.1150-1800 further revised Rs.1200- 2040 as per report of Sinhdeo Committee. Thereafter, vide order dated 04-12-1995 he was promoted to the post of Accountant in the same pay scale which was drawing as an Upper Division Clerk.

(3) In pursuance to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee the second respondent District Education Officer, Indore vide order dated 28-2-2009 (Annexure P-5) sanctioned the benefit of second Kramonnati payable to him on the basis of Kramonnati Policy of the State Government w.e.f. 05-04-2000 the date on which he had completed 24 years of service and fixed him in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/-. As a consequence of the said order dated 28-02-2009 the petitioner's pay was fixed w.e.f. 5-4-2000, vide order dated 04-04-2009 (Annexure P-6).

(4) When the matter stood thus, on the basis of objection raised by the fourth respondent, the third respondent issued the impugned order dated 10-08-2009 (Annexure P-1) thereby ordered for withdrawal of the benefit of second Kramonnati and also ordered for recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition.

(5) According to the petitioner, the impugned order is illegal and is violative of the principles of natural justice. He submits that in his service tenure the higher pay scale was extended to him only once when he was promoted vide order dated 11.03.1982 from the post of LDC to the post of UDC. He also submits that though vide order dated 04.12.1995 he was promoted as Accountant but in the same pay scale of UDC, which he was getting prior to his promotion. Therefore, according to him the objection of the fourth respondent was baseless and contrary to the Kramonnati Policy and the order of cancellation of the benefit is liable to be quashed.

(6) In reply, the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner was firstly promoted form the post of LDC to the post of UDC vide order dated 11.03.1982 and at that time only he was granted the benefit of higher pay scale. They have admitted that the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Accountant in the same pay scale as he was getting while he was UDC. Thus, the benefit of higher pay scale was extended only once on 11.03.1982 when he was promoted as UDC.

(7) In the circumstances, when admittedly on promotion as Accountant the petitioner's pay scale remained the same as he was getting as a UDC, he could not have been denied the benefit of the Kramonnati Policy.

(8) The petitioner in order to clear the position that he was promoted on the post of Accountant in the same pay scale has placed reliance on the amendment in M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 1990 on the basis of recommendation of Sinhdeo Committee by which the pay of UDC was revised from 1150-1800 to 1200-2040/- which he was getting when he was promoted to the post of Accountant in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/-.

(9) Thus, in view of the aforesaid I find that the petitioner was rightly extended the benefit of second Kramonnati and cancellation of the same vide order dated 10.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) is illegal and is violative of Clause 2 (Kha) of the Kramonnati Policy dated 19.04.1999.

(10) Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order (Annexure P-1) deserves to be and is hereby quashed. No order as to the costs."

In the light of the aforesaid judgment, as the controversy involved in the present case has already been decided, the present petition also stands allowed. The impugned order passed by the respondents dated 15.05.2007 is hereby quashed. The respondents shall conclude the fixation of salary keeping into account all benefits of kramonnati granted to the petitioners and shall pay all arrears within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the arrears of salary and enhanced pension is not granted to the petitioners within 90 days as directed by this Court, the petitioners shall be entitled for interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of entitlement till the amount is actually paid to the petitioners."

Since the petitioners' case is similar to the case of Jagdish Prasad Asati (supra), the aforesaid decision is fairly applicable in the case of present petitioners also. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners and grant them all the benefit of Second Kramonnati and pay all the arrears within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.