Ramswaroop S/o Surajlal Sahu vs State of M.P. and others

By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.1.2010 whereby the petitioner''s representation for grant of 2nd Kramonnati has been rejected as also the communications dated 6.8.2009 and 10.12.2009 by which he has been communicated with the ACRs for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 and seeking a direction to the respondents to restore the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- w.e.f. 1.4.2006.

The case of the petitioner is that after induction in service he was promoted as Field Officer by order dated 31.12.1984 in the pay scale of Rs.860-1330 (revised as Rs.5000-8000) w.e.f. 1.1.1996. He was granted the 1st Kramonnati on completion of 24 years of service w.e.f. 30.4.2003 by order dated 21.1.2004 in the pay scale of

Rs.5500-9000. Intermittently the petitioner was taken on deputation in the Election Commission and according to the petitioner; he was harassed by the competent authorities on this count. Vide order dated 17.11.2008 he was granted the benefit of 2nd Kramonnati in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 and his pay was fixed at Rs.8125/- w.e.f. 1.4.2006 but while revising the pay as per the provisions of M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 the benefit of the higher pay scale of Rs.8000- 13500/- was stopped and the petitioner was fixed in the corresponding pay scale of Rs.5500-9000. The petitioner had submitted the representation which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 18.1.2010. Further case of the petitioner is that the ACRs for the year 2008-09 and 2009-10 have not been properly written and belatedly communicated, hence they are liable to be expunged.

Respondents have filed their reply taking the stand that the petitioner was entitled for benefit of higher scale of pay only on the scrutiny of ACRs by the DPC, and the DPC had not found the petitioner eligible for grant of the scale, therefore, his name was not included in the list of eligible persons, hence the benefit of 2nd higher pay scale was stopped. Further stand is that the ACRs for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 have been written properly and even otherwise they are not relevant for the purpose of granting the benefit of 2nd Kramonnati.

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

The stand of the petitioner is that the benefit of the 2 nd Kramonnati should be granted to him without scrutinizing the ACRs by the DPC but such a stand cannot be accepted since clarificatory circular dated 1.4.2008 in clear terms provides that

for obtaining the benefit of the higher pay scale under the Kramonnati Scheme, it is necessary to fulfill the eligibility conditions prescribed for promotion and if there is any special condition prescribed for any post, then that is also required to be fulfilled. The record reveals that the circular in respect of grant of 2nd higher pay scale had become effective w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and from that date the petitioner had become eligible for consideration. The reply filed by the respondents reveals that the case of the petitioner was considered by the DPC and the petitioner was not found eligible for grant of benefit of 2nd higher pay scale, hence his name was not included in the list of the eligible candidates, therefore, the benefit which was erroneously extended to the petitioner earlier, was stopped. The petitioner was granted the benefit of 1st Kramonnati in the year 2003, therefore, while considering his case for 2nd higher pay scale the ACRs prior to 2006 and subsequent to 2003 were considered. Hence the petitioner''s grievance that he has been denied benefit of higher pay scale on the basis of ACRs of 2007-08 and 2008-09 has no foundation.

By the impugned communication dated 18.1.2010 while rejecting the petitioner''s case, the petitioner has duly been informed that he was not found fit for grant of time scale of pay by the DPC. The DPC proceedings are not under challenge in this writ petition, nor any argument has been advanced questioning the same.

So far as the petitioner''s case against the ACRs of 2007-08 and 2008-09 is concerned, it is noticed that the petitioner''s representation against the Acrs of 2008-09 and 2009-10 has been accepted and vide order dated 24.3.2014 these ACRs have been expunged. As against the ACR of

2007-08 communicated vide letter dated 6.8.2009, the petitioner has already submitted the representation dated

9.2009. If the said representation has not been decided till now, the competent authority will decide the same without any delay and if it has already been decided, its outcome will be communicated to the petitioner. 8. IA No.5591/2015 reveals that the petitioner has retired in 2016 and before his retirement, the respondent No.3 had sent the communication dated 12.8.2015 for granting him benefit of time scale of pay. If the petitioner has subsequently become eligible for the same, then the competent authority will take an appropriate decision on the said communication within a period of 3 months from today.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed off.