Ram Siya Sharma vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for grant of benefit of F.R. 22-D and prayed for quashing the recovery made against him. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are as under:-

The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Upper Division Teacher. The petitioner was promoted as Head Master, Middle School by order dated 30-6-2005. As an Upper Division Teacher, the petitioner was getting Kramonnati scale of Rs. 5500-9000. The pay scale on promotion as Head Master was also same, i.e., Rs. 5500-9000. The post of Head Master involves duties of higher responsibilities. On completion of age of superannuation, the petitioner retired on 31-7-2009. At the time of retirement, an objection was raised that petitioner was promoted in the same pay scale, and therefore, F.R. 22-D is not applicable. Consequently, by taking away the said benefit, it is held that recovery be made.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner by relying the judgment of this Court reported in R.S. Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others, submits that this matter is squarely covered by the said judgment.

Per contra, Shri Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, submits that petitioner has already enjoyed the benefits of Kramonnati scale, and therefore, no further benefits under F.R. 22-D are permissible. It is stated that objection was raised by Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts, Chambal Division, and therefore, department has taken the action.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The reasons for grant of Kramonnati and F.R. 22-D are different. It has no co-relation with each other. It is settled in law that benefit of Kramonnati or financial up-gradation is granted when employee is not getting promotion for a considerable long time/stipulated period. To avoid the stagnation, he is being granted financial up-gradation, 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 up-gradation 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 financial up-gradation. Consequently, the 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.