Subhash Kumar Dubey vs Principal Secretary

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard. Petitioner, retired Junior Accounts Officer, Health and Family Planning Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, seeks quashment of communication dated 10.5.2012; whereby, while declining the claim of the petitioner for grant of second Kramonnati Pay Scale of Rs. 5000-8000, the petitioner is also informed that he will not be entitled for special pay of Rs. 250 claimed on the anvil of Madhya Pradesh Fundamental Rule 22-D and Rule 10(2) of M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1998. Petitioner was initially appointed on 17.12.1971 as accountant cum clerk. On 27.6.1995 he was promoted to the post of Head Clerk. Thereafter on 5.8.1998 the petitioner got second promotion to the post of Camp Coordinator. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2008 from the post of Junior Accounts Officer. After his retirement petitioner preferred a representation to the respondents for grant of two Kramonnati on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service in accordance with circular dated 17.4.1999. Since no decision was taken on the representation, petitioner preferred W.P. No. 7970/2010 (S). The petition was disposed of on 6.5.2011 with the direction to the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner for grant of Kramonnati Pay scale after completion of 12 years and 24 years of service in accordance with the policy within a period of 3 months.

In pursuance thereto respondents on 1.8.2011 passed an order holding that the petitioner while in service had earned two promotions was not entitled for the benefit of first Kramonnati under the scheme of 1999. However, in respect of second Kramonnati he was held entitled for Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f 19.4.1999 subject to approval by the Joint Director (Treasuries and Accounts), reasons assigned were that the second promotion on the post of Camp-Co-ordinator since was in the same pay scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000, therefore, was held entitled for the second Kramonnati.

The Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts from whom approval was sought held that since the petitioner was given two promotions, firstly as Head Clerk on 27.6.1995 and as Camp Coordinator on 5.8.1998 will not be entitled for the Kramonnati Pay Scale. In respect of Special Pay, it was held that Special Pay under F.R. 22-D since is available in lieu of onerous duty and the petitioner since was not assigned the onerous duty was not entitled for the same. The Director opined:

It is contended on behalf of petitioner that, the respondents have misconstrued the circular dated 17.3.1999/19.4.1999. It is urged that since the promotion of the petitioner as Camp Coordinator being in the same scale of pay drawn by the petitioner as Head Clerk the same ought not to have been treated as promotion. There is no substance in the contention. It is not in dispute that the post of Camp Coordinator is a higher post in the hierarchy and the promotion is from the feeder post, i.e., Head Clerk. On being promoted the pay scale is fixed as per F.R. 22(a)(ii).

F.R. 22(a) stipulates:

22 Initial Pay on appointment to posts on time scale pay.- The initial substantive pay of a Government servant who is appointed substantively to a post on a time-scale of pay, is regulated as follows:-

(a) If he hold a lien on a permanent post, other than a tenure post, or would hold a lien on such a post had his lien not been suspended-

(i) When appointed to the new post involves the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance (as interpreted for the purposes of Fundamental Rule 30) than those attaching to such permanent post, he will draw as initial pay, the stage of the time-scale next above his substantive pay in respect of the old post.

(ii) When appointment to the new post does not involve such assumption, he will draw as initial pay the stage of the time-scale which is equal to his substantive pay in respect of the old post, or if, there is no such stage, the stage, next below that pay plus personal pay equal to the difference, and in either case will continue to draw that pay until such time as he would have received an increment in the time scale of the old post, or for the period after which an increment is earned in the time-scale of the new post, whichever is less. But, if the minimum pay of the time-scale of the new post is higher than his substantive pay in respect of the old post, he will draw that minimum as initial pay.

In the case at hand since the post of Camp Coordinator is in direct line of promotion from Head Clerk, it cannot be assumed that, there was an assumption of duties or responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to such permanent post. No material is either commended at in that regard; therefore, petitioner''s pay could not have been fixed under F.R. 22(a)(i), but under F.R. 22(a)(ii). And while fixing his pay under F.R. 22(a)(ii) a pay equal to the difference treated as personal pay gets merged with future increment. Such personal pay in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be treated as special pay as provided under F.R. 22D.

F.R. 22D stipulates that Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, where a Government servant holding a post in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity, is promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him his initial pay in the time-scale of the higher post, shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post by one increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued:

Provided that the provisions of this rule, shall not apply where a Government servant holding a Class I post in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity to a higher post which is also a Class-I post.

Since the special pay was not attached with the post of Camp Coordinator, the petitioner gets no benefit of Rule 10(2) of M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 1998. Rule 10 provides that:

Special Pay.- (1) Except in the case of Government Servant who are in receipt of special pay in addition to pay in the existing scale of pay and where the existing scale of pay with special pay has been replaced by a scale of pay without any special pay, the special pay as attached to any other post will continue to be so attached with the revised scale of pay till the State Government otherwise directs.

(2) In such cases where the existing scale of pay of any posts before and after promotion were different and revised scales of pay of such two posts are merged into one scale of pay under these rules, then the Government servants who are holding the existing posts after promotion shall be entitled to draw a special pay of Rs. 250.00 per month in the scale of pay revised under these rules.

(3) The special pay shall be treated as part of pay for the purpose of pay fixation in the case of the Government servant is promoted to a higher post carrying a higher pay scale.

Thus, Rule 10 does not create a right but only protects the special pay which an incumbent earns while discharging onerous duties. The petitioner, therefore, has rightly been held not entitled for special pay of Rs. 250/-.

Next submission by the Counsel for the petitioner is that Kramonnati Pay has wrongly been deprived. Clause 2 of circular F1-1/1/

/99 dated 17.3.1999/19.4.1999 stipulates:

Apparent it is from above provision that the benefit of Kramonnati pay scale is extended to such government servant who in the period of 24 years have not earned advancement/promotion in service. In the case of petitioner since he got two promotions he is rightly held not entitled for benefit of Kramonnati pay scale.

In view whereof no interference is caused. In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.