Sarje Rao Indurkar vs State of M.P.

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard Shri A.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.M. Lal, learned G.A. for the State.

The petitioner has filed this petition claiming the following reliefs:-

(1) To direct the respondents to grant the benefit of second Kramonnati w.e.f. 26.12.2003.

(2) To pay arrears and fix the pension of the petitioner in second Kramonnati Pay Scale and other consequential benefits.

(3) To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.

It is stated that the petitioner had completed 24 years of service prior to 2007 in the establishment of the respondents and according to the circular of the State Government dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999, the petitioner was entitled to grant of second Kramonnati but the same has been denied to him by the respondents/authorities and the representation filed by him has also been rejected by communication dated 03.08.2007/ 04.08.2007.

It is stated that rejection of the petitioner''s claim is absolutely misconceived inasmuch as the petitioner has completed necessary years of service in the establishment of the respondents and therefore, he is entitled to second Kramonnati. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the basis of his service record as the only criteria necessary and required was completion of 24 years of service on the post.

The respondents have filed a return and have stated that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered by them in accordance with the policy decision dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999 by the Committee in which last five years'' confidential reports were necessary be examined. It is stated that on examining the case of the petitioner he was not found fit for being granted second Kramonnati and hence his case was rejected.

The respondents submit that the petitioner was also informed about the rejection of his claim by order dated 04.08.2007 Annexure P/2. In the circumstances, the respondents pray for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the criteria prescribed in the circular dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999 for grant of second Kramonnati is not only just completion of 24 years of service but also examination of the previous five years'' confidential report in accordance with the same procedure and criteria as prescribed for promotion. The relevant clause of the said circular i.e. clause 2((sic)) is in the following terms:-

The respondents along with the return have also filed the proceedings of the departmental Kramonnati Committee that was convened on 27.06.2007 in which the case of the petitioner was also considered. The committee has taken note of confidential report of the last five years of the petitioner which is to the following effect:-

As is evident from a perusal of serial no. 11 in the chart filed by the respondents, that the petitioner was awarded seven marks and was therefore found unfit for grant of second Kramonnati. In the said proceedings it is noted that on previous occasion also the petitioner''s case for grant of second Kramonnati was considered on 30.01.2006 and he was found unfit.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner did not fulfill the necessary criteria for being granted second Kramonnati as is evident from the proceedings of the Committee which is filed along with the return of the respondents.

Looking to the aforesaid it is clear that the petitioner''s case for grant of second Kramonnati was rightly considered and rejected by the respondents in accordance with clause 2((sic)) of the Scheme dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999 and therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

The petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed.