Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Sharan Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2021
Author: Vishal Dhagat
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 12829/2019
Parties Name RAM SHARAN SHRIVASTAVA
VS.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
AND OTHERS
Bench Constituted Single Bench
Judgment delivered By HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
Whether approved for
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For petitioner: Shri Ramsuphal Chaturvedi, Advocate
For Respondents : Shri Aman Pandey, Panel Lawyer
(O R D E R )
02/12/2021
1. Petitioner has filed this petition making a prayer to give
him benefit of order dated 6.10.2017 by which petitioner
was given second up-gradation of pay from 19.4.1999. After
passing of said order, petitioner made representation for
giving him said benefit but same has not been extended to
him.
2. It is submitted that withholding of benefit to petitioner
despite order dated 6.10.2017 is illegal and this Court may
issue writ/direction to respondents to grant petitioner benefit
of second up-gradation of pay as per order dated 6.10.2017.
3. Respondents had filed its reply and had stated therein
that order dated 6.10.2017 will become operative only when
same has been approved by Joint Director (Treasury,
Accounts & Pension). Order was not approved by Joint
Director and objection has been raised by office of Joint
Director, therefore, benefit has not been extended to
petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner had not disclosed
correct facts before this Court.
4. Petitioner was appointed as LDC and was promoted on
the post of UDC. He was granted another promotion as
Accountant vide order dated 20.1.1989. As per circular of
State Government dated 19.4.1999 benefit of second up-
gradation of pay is to be granted if Government employee
has completed 24 years of regular service and during said
period he has not been given benefit of more than one
higher pay scale/promotion or up-gradation. Since petitioner
has been promoted to the post of Accountant, therefore, he
is not entitled to get the benefit of up-gradation scheme.
5. Petitioner has refuted said averment by filing rejoinder
and had relied on judgment passed in the case of Nathulal
Verma vs. State of M.P. and others, 2010 (4) MPHT
466. In the case of Nathulal Verma (supra) benefit of
second Krammonnati was granted to petitioner because he
was promoted to the post of Accountant in the same pay
scale of UDC, as petitioner's pay scale on post of Accountant
remained same as was of UDC, therefore, he has been
granted the benefit of Second Krammonati.
6. Case of Nathulal Verma (supra) is distinguishable
from case of petitioner as it is not the case of petitioner that
he has been given the same pay-scale of UDC after being
promoted on the post of Accountant.
7. Petitioner has relied on another judgment reported in
the case of H. P. Parashar vs. The State of M.P, (W.P
No.13556/2014) decided on 31.7.2015. Case of present is
distinguishable from H. P. Parashar. Case of H.P.
Parashar was in respect of grant of time scale of pay as per
circular dated 24.2.2008. Case of petitioner is not based on
circular of 24.2.2008, but he is seeking second up-gradation
of pay in view of circular 19.4.1999.
8. In view of same, petitioner cannot be given the benefit
of second up-gradation of pay in view of order dated
19.4.1999 as petitioner has been promoted to post of
Accountant and he had received more than one promotion,
therefore, writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
mms
Digitally signed by MONSI M
SIMON
Date: 2021.12.08 11:31:44 +05'30'
