Omprakash Vyas. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.07.2014 by which the benefit of advance increments which has been granted to the petitioner under FR-22-D is sought to be withdrawn.

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade - III by order dated 5.5.1990, thereafter on his promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II on 4/08/2008 in accordance with the provisions of FR-22-D he was granted the benefit of the two advance increments, but subsequently without following the principles of natural justice and without considering the judgments of this Court the respondents have passed the impugned order seeking to withdraw the benefit under FR-22-D which has been granted to the petitioner.

When the matter is taken up learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the respondents are seeking to withdraw the benefit of FR-22-D on the ground that the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Grade-III to Assistant Grade- II was on the same pay scale whereas in terms of the judgments of this Court, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of FR-22-D even though promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-III to Assistant Grade- II was on the same pay scale since the higher post involved greater responsibility and duties.

Counsel for the State has opposed the petition and has submitted that since the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Grade-III to Assistant Grade- II was on the same pay scale, he is not entitled to any benefit of FR-22-D and the impugned order of of recovery has rightly been passed.

Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on the perusal of the record, it is found that the respondents have passed the impugned order and they are seeking to withdraw the benefit of FR-22-D on the sole ground that the petitioner was promoted from the post of Assistant Grade-III to Assistant Grade- II on the same pay scale.

The issue which the petitioner is raising before this Court is already covered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of MP and others Vs. Dayaram Patidar WP No.1104/2001 dated 4.10.2002 whereby this Court has held that the FR.22-D speaks of promotion from the post of lower post to the higher post and not from one scale to another. It has further been held by the Division Bench that the scale of pay is irrelevant in the matter of application of FR-22-D which confers some financial benefit to the employee on promotion which is also logical one.

The Single Bench of this Court also in respect of the promotion from the post of UDT to Head Master involving the same pay scale but having greater responsibilities in the matter of Ram Siya Sharma Vs. State of MP : 2013(1)MPLJ 51 has held as under:-

"6.The reasons for grant of Kramonnati and F.R22-D are different. It has no correlation with each other. It is settled in law that benefit of Kramonnati or financial upgradation is granted when employee is not getting promotion for a considerable long time/stipulated period. To avoid the stagnation, he is being granted financial upgradation which does not involve any change of nature of duties and responsibilities. In other words, upon grant of Kramonnati, the employee performs same nature of duties with same designation, but gets higher scale of pay, whereas F.R.22-D is given when employee is promoted from one post to another carrying same pay scale but having greater responsibilities and duties. Petitioner's specific assertion that the post of Head Master is carrying greater responsibilities and duties is not disputed by the other side. Thus, F.R.22-D is clearly applicable. This Court in R.S.Sikarwar (supra) has also considered the same and decided to extend the benefit to the petitioner. Consequently, the stand of the respondents that F.R.22-D is not applicable because of grant of financial upgradation is without any basis and substance. No provision is shown to this Court which deprives the benefit of F.R.22-D to the petitioner on grant of recovery arising out of taking away the benefit of F.R.22-D is also impermissible.

Resultantly, petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to restore the benefit of F.R.22-D to the petitioner from due date with all consequential benefits. Recovery to that extent is also set aside. No costs".

Since the issue raised by the petitioner is squarely Bench of this Court, therefore, the impugned order dated 30.07.2014 (Annexure P/3 & P/4) passed by the respondents cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The amount if any recovered by the respondents in pursuance to the impugned order be refunded to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.