Chattisgarh High Court
Vishambharnath Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 March, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:11112
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order reserved on : 09-01-2025
Order passed on : 06-03-2025
WPS No. 3502 of 2015
Vishambharnath Mishra, aged about 74 years, S/o Shri Ramkishun
Mishra, Retired Head Master, Government Middle School, Khutera,
Block Patharia, Bilaspur (CG), R/o Village Dohatra, Post Mora, via
Nandghat, Distt. Durg (CG)
... Petitioner
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education
Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG)
2. Director, Public Instruction, Raipur (CG)
3. Joint Director, Treasury, Account & Pension, Bilaspur, Distt.
Bilaspur (CG)
4. District Education Officer, Bilaspur (CG)
5. District Education Officer, Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli (CG)
6. Block Education Officer, Patharia, District Bilaspur (CG)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Dhaniram Patel, Advocate.
For Respondents/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
CAV ORDER
Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13.8.2015
(Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.5/District Education Officer,
Mungeli whereby the petitioner has been denied benefit of 2nd
Kramonnatti on the ground that he has already been promoted while
he was in service.
02. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner retired in the
year 2002 after attaining the age of superannuation from the post of
Head Master. As per Circular dated 3.10.2008 (Annexure P/3), the
State Government issued direction for giving benefit of 1st and 2nd
Kramonnatti to the employees who have completed 12 & 24 years of
service. Again the State issued a Circular dated 11.1.2010 (Annexure
P/4) whereby it was directed to the concerned department to give
benefit of 1st and 2nd Kramonnatti to the retired/dead employees who
were entitled and were not given the said benefit. While considering
this issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Tripura
Vs. KK Roy, AIR 2004 SCW 01, held that the employees should have
been given benefit of two upgraded pay scale, first after completing 12
years of service and the second after completing 24 years of service.
The petitioner had filed a writ petition i.e. WPS No.7641/2010 before
this Court for seeking 2nd Kramonnatti on the basis of aforesaid
circulars. However, vide order dated 3.1.2011 (Annexure P/5) the said
petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to
make a representation before the concerned authority in light of the
above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In compliance of the
said order, the petitioner made a representation before the concerned
authority but it was not decided, hence legal notices were served on
the respondent vide Annexure P/6 and P/7. Thereafter, by the
impugned order dated 13.8.2015 (Annexure P/1) the petitioner was
denied benefit of 2nd Kramonnatti on the ground that during service
period, he was promoted. Hence this petition for the following relief:
"10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash the impugned order dated 13.08.15
issued by the respondent no.4.
10.2 That, respondents further be directed to extend
the benefits of 2nd kramonnati in light of
circular issued by the state from time to time,
within a reasonable time, as this court deems
fit.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court further be pleased to
direct the respondents to refix the pension of
the petitioner after giving benefit as state
above.
10.4 That, any other relief which the Hon'ble Court
deems fit may kindly be granted."
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. Even if the petitioner was
promoted during service period, he is eligible for grant of 2nd
Kramonnatti as per amendment made in the scheme in the year 1984
(Annexure P/8). The services of the petitioner are governed by the old
circular as he was entitled for 2nd Kramonnatti way back in the year
1984 after completion of 24 years of service and therefore, the
impugned order is contrary to the circulars issued by the State in this
regard. Respondent No.4 has wrongly interpreted the circular of the
year 1999 whereas the earlier circular clearly says about extension of
benefit of Kramonnatti even to those who have been promoted. In a
writ petition involving identical issue i.e. WP No.2805/2002 parties
being RS Verma Vs. State of CG and others, this Court vide order
dated 29.8.2006 has granted increment to the petitioner and cost has
also been imposed on the respondents vide Annexure D/1. For all
these reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the
petitioner deserves to be granted the relief claimed in this petition.
04. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State
would contend that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on
the sole ground of delay and laches as the petitioner stood retired in
the year 2002 and after 9 years of retirement he initially filed a writ
petition in the year 2011 which was disposed of as withdrawn with
liberty to file representation on 3.1.2011. After rejection of his
representation by the impugned order dated 13.8.2015, he filed the
instant writ petition. While he was in service, he never made any
application/representation for grant of benefit of 2nd Kramonnatti nor
filed any petition. After settlement of all the retiral dues and pension, he
directly approached this Court. He has miserably failed to explain the
inordinate delay in approaching this Court by filing writ petition.
Therefore, this petition is liable to dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches.
He would next submit that as per representation of the petitioner
he claimed parity with the other employees. In this regard, it is
submitted that in the matter of SS Balu and another Vs. State of
Kerala and others, (2009) 2 SCC 479, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that reliefs passed on parity cannot be claimed when the petition
suffers from delay and laches. Further, in the matter of Bhakar Beas
Management Board Vs. Krishan Kumar Vij and another, (2010) 8
SCC 701, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to consider and
deprecated the casual approach of the High Court in overlooking delay
of 8 years while passing the order considering the claim with regard to
promotion after 8 years of accrual of cause of action.
05. Learned counsel for the respondents/State would further submit
that the contention of the petitioner is misconceived and the petition is
devoid of any merits. The occasion for grant of Kramonnatti to a
government employee arises when the concerned government
employee is found fit for being promoted but due to unavailability of
vacancy of the promotional post, he/she could not be promoted vide
administrative instruction/circular dated 19.4.1999 (Annexure R/1). The
petitioner was initially appointed on 14.3.1960 as Assistant Teacher on
temporary basis in the school run by Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli on
the fixed pay of Rs.50/- per month and vide order dated 19.8.1963 his
services were absorbed in government service as Lower Division
Teacher (LDT) on the pay of Rs.100 + 10/- per month. On 10.2.1982 he
was granted first promotion to the post of Head Master of Primary
School on the pay of Rs.545-925/- and second promotion granted on
3.9.1985 to the post of Upper Division Teacher on the pay scale of
Rs.740-1180/- and after joining as UDT two increments under 22D of
F.R. Rules were granted. Thereafter he was given third promotion to
the post of Head Master of Middle School on 25.1.1996 on the pay
scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/- and further two increments under 22D of
FR Rules were granted to him. He retired on 31.7.2002.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that as per Circular
dated 19.4.1999 (Annexure R/1), if an employee has not received two
higher pay scales during his service period, then he would be entitled
for benefit of Kramonnatti, first after completion of 12 years of service
and second after completion of 24 years of service. However, in the
present case, the petitioner has received higher pay scale on every
promotion and further second Kramonnatti is not granted on
completion of requisite service period because he was further
promoted second and third time during his service tenure and then
retired on 31.7.2002. Therefore, the impugned order denying benefit of
2nd Kramonnatti is in accordance with the rules and circulars applicable
and the present petition being without any substance is liable to be
dismissed on merits as well.
06. Opposing the aforesaid submission of the respondents/State,
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his rejoinder that
contention of the respondents that vide Annexure R/2 the petitioner
was given first promotion on 10.2.1982 in the pay scale of Rs.545-
925/- is incorrect in view of table for fitment given in serial No.24 that a
person holding scale of Rs.169-300/- will be fitted in the scale of
Rs.545-925/- as LDT, therefore, it cannot be treated as promotion but
his pay fixation only. Copy of the said fitment form under CG Wage
Fixation Rules is filed Annexure P/9. Thus, it is incorrect statement by
the State that the petitioner has got three promotions. As per decisions
in the matters of KK Roy (supra) and Krishna Kant Choudhari Vs.
State of MP, 2013(1) MPLJ 604, upgradation benefit has to be given
from the first appointment date. The relevant explanation given by the
government published in page no. 412 of MP Wage Fixation Rule will
also goes to show that Kramonnatti has to be given from the date of
first appointment.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
08. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner was working as
Head Master and retired in the year 2002 as Head Master. As per
petitioner, during his service tenure benefit of 2nd Kramonnatti was not
given to him even after completion of 24 years of service. He filed a
writ petition i.e. WPS No.7641/2010 and the same was subsequently
withdrawn by him with liberty to make a representation to consider his
case in light of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, this
Court disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn vide order dated
3.1.2011 with the aforesaid liberty.
09. The relevant portion of the impugned order (Annexure P/1) reads
as under:
"संदर्भित पत्र के अनुक्रय में श्री विश्वम्बर नाथ मिश्र सेवा निवृत्त पधान पाठक
माध्यमिक शाला खुटेरा के द्वितीय क्रमोन्नति के संबंध में जानकारी
निम्नानुसार है।
01. 12 वर्ष की नियमित सेवा पुरी करने पर प्रथम क्रमोन्नति वेतनमान
दिनांक 01.01.1986 (से लागू है) से दिये जाने का शासनादेश है।
02. द्वितीय क्रमोन्नति 24 वर्ष की सेवा पुरी करने पर वरिष्ठ वेतनमान दिनांक
19.04.1999 से लागू किया गया है।
श्री मिश्र की सेवा 14.03.1960 से 31.07.2002 तक कु ल सेवा 41 वर्ष
15 दिन होता है। सेवाकाल के दौरान इन्हें प्रथम एवं द्वितीय दोनो क्रमोन्नति
का लाभ नहीं मिला है। क्यों कि वे दिनांक 03.09.1985 को उच्च श्रेणी
शिक्षा के पद पर पदोन्नत हो चुके थे उन्हें 22 D का लाभ 2 वेतन वृद्धि दिया
जा चुका है। जबकि प्रथम क्रमोन्नति 01.01.1986 से लागू हुआ है। जिसका
लाभ पदोन्नति पर दिया जा चुका है।
श्री मिश्र 25.01.1996 को पदोन्नत होकर वेतनमान 5500-175-9000 पर
निर्धारित कर अप्रेल 1997 को 22 D-2 वेतन वृद्धि का लाभ मिल चुका था।
जबकि द्वितीय क्रमोन्नति योजना 19.04.1999 से लागू है इस तरह से द्वितीय
क्रमोन्नति वेतन यदि वे प्रधान पाठक पद पर पदोन्नत नहीं हुए होते तो उन्हें
निश्चय ही लाभ दिया जाता।
अतः किसी भी शासकीय सेवक को 19.04.1999 को 24 वर्ष सेवा पूरी
करने पर यदि द्वितीय पदोन्नत वेतनमान मिल चुका है। उन्हें द्वितीय क्रमोन्नति
वेतन की पात्रता नहीं है। क्योंकि उस वेतनमान को पा चुके है।"
It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was
promoted in the year 1996 and was getting higher pay scale. It is not
case of the petitioner that he was on the same post without promotion
for the last 12 years. Annexure P/8 filed by the petitioner is Time-bound
Advancement Scheme of the government and its para 3.1 (d) ([k) (x)
(?k) being relevant is reproduced hereunder:
"(3) पात्रता के निबंधन एवं शर्तेः-
3.1 किसी शासकीय सेवक द्वारा धारित पद के लिये नियत उच्च वेतनमान में
उस शासकीय सेवक को क्रमोनत किया जाना निम्नलिखित शतों के
अध्यधीन रहेगा
(क) संबंधित शासकीय सेवक को पदोन्नति के मान्य सिद्धान्तों एवं विभागीय
नियमों के अनुसार पदोन्नति के योग्य होना चाहिये।
(ख) शासकीय सेवक को पहली क्रमोन्नति पाने की पात्रता उसी दशा में होगी
जबकि उसे पूर्व में 12 वर्ष की सेवा पूरी कर लेने पर भी कोई
पदोन्नति/क्रमोनति नहीं प्राप्त हुई है।
उदाहरण- एक निम्न श्रेणी लिपिक 6 वर्ष के सेवाकाल के पश्चात् उच्च श्रेणी
लिपिक के पद पर पदोनत हुआ। उसे कडिका 2(1) में वर्णित तालिका के
स्तम्भ (1) के सरल क्रमांक (5) वेतनमान रुपये 515-800 के समक्ष स्तम्भ
(4) में बताये वेतनमान रुपये 635-950 का लाभ उत्ती स्थिति में देय होगा
जबकि उच्चश्रेणी लिपिक के पद पर 14 वर्ष के सेवाकाल में उसे और कोई
पदोन्नति नहीं मिली हो।
(ग) दूसरी क्रमोन्नति पाने की पात्रता शासकीय सेवकों को उसी दशा में होगी
जबकि पूर्व में के वल उन्हें एक ही पदोन्नति प्राप्त हुई हो, और ऐसी
पदोन्नति/कमोनति के बाद के आठ वर्षों को मिलाकर उसकी निरन्तर
शासकीय सेवा 20 वर्ष की हो चुकी हो। जिन शासकीय कर्मचारियों को
प्रारंभिक नियुक्ति के पद से दो पदोन्नति हो चुकी हैं, उन्हें इस योजना के
अन्तर्गत क्रमोन्नत किये जाने की पात्रता नहीं होगी।.
(घ) एक या दो पदोन्नति मिल पाने पर भी योजना के अनर्गत कर्मचारियों को
क्रमोनति dk लाभ प्राप्त होगा एवं ,dkadh (Isolated) पद tgka पदोन्नति के
कोई अवसर उपलब्ध नहीं है, उन प्रकरणों में भी कर्मचारियों को इस योजना
के अन्तर्गत क्रमोन्नति की पात्रता होगी।"
10. As per the petitioner, his services were regularized in 1963 and
in the year 1975 he completed 12 years of service, therefore, he is
entitled for one Kramonnatti. In the impugned order it is clearly
observed that the circular related to higher pay scale was issued on
1.1.1986 and prior to that on 3.9.1985 the petitioner was promoted to
the post of Upper Division Teacher and after that promoted to the post
of Head Master on 25.1.1986 whereas second higher pay scale
scheme came into force since 19.4.1999. Thus, it is clear that the
petitioner's case is quite different from the case of R.S. Verma in WP
No.2805/2002 who was not given any promotion during his whole
service period. Hence the order passed by this Court in the matter of
RS Verma (supra) being distinguishable on facts is of no help to the
present petitioner. The competent authority duly considered the
representation of the petitioner in light of relevant circulars of the State
Government and found him not entitled for the benefit of 2nd
Kramonnatti.
11. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no good reason to
interfere with the impugned order (Annexure P/1). The writ petition
being devoid of merits is liable to be and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
Digitally
MOHD signed by
AKHTAR MOHD
AKHTAR
KHAN KHAN
Khan
