Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 October, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Writ Petition No.9080 of 2018
(Rajkumar Sahu Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Jabalpur, Dated :23.10.2021
Shri Ram Gopal Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kaustubh Singh, learned panel lawyer for the
respondents/State.
The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s) :-
"(1) That this hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to
call for the relevant records and examine the same.
(1.a) Order dt. 07.06.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by
respondent No.4 may kindly be quash in the interest of
justice.
(2) To issue direction to the respondents extend the
benefit of Kramonatti from due date i.e. after
completing service period 12 years and Samayman as
per order dt. 21.09.2016, circulars dt. 24.01.2008 and
30.09.2014 to the petitioner in the interest of justice
with arrears and interest.
(3) Any other order/orders writ/writs,
direction/directions this hon'ble court may deem fit
and proper may also be granted in favour of the
petitioner. Cost of petition may also be awarded to the
petitioner."
It is alleged that the petitioner who was working in the
respondents/department under the Work Charged and Contingency
employee stood retired from the post of Time-keeper after attaining the
age of superannuation completing nearly 21 years of service without there
being any promotion and Kramonatti benefits extended to the petitioner.
He has attained the status of regular/permanent employee as per Rule 2
(c) of M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee) Pension
Rules, 1979. He is entitled to the benefits of Kramonatti scheme after
completion of 12 and 24 years of service in the respondents/establishment
but none of the benefits have been extended to the petitioner. It is argued
that similar controversy has been considered and decided by this Court in
the case of K.L.Asre Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.1070/2003)
decided on 07.11.2005. He has earlier preferred a writ petition being
W.P.No.14912/2015 before this Court which was disposed of on
06.12.2016 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the
petitioner within a period of 90 days. In pursuance to the same,
representation was submitted by the petitioner which was considered by
the Authorities and benefits of Samayman scheme has been extended to
the petitioner from 01.01.2016 vide order dated 21.09.2016. It is argued
that none of the benefits of kramonatti from the due date after completion
of service of 12 years and 24 years have been extended to the petitioner,
therefore, the present petition has been filed.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further relied upon the
orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Veer
Singh Thakur and others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and
others [Writ Petition No.1908/2016] dated 13.04.2017 wherein the
similar controversy was considered by this Court and the Court has
directed for grant of Kramonatti benefits on completion of 12 and 24
years of service in terms of K.L.Asre (supra).
By filing a response to the writ petition, counsel appearing for the
State has denied the prayer of the petitioner and adopted the reply filed in
the case of Hukum Singh Maravi Vs. State of M.P. and others, (Writ
Petition No.22144/2017) wherein they have virtually denied the claim of
the petitioner and has contended that he is entitled to the benefits from the
date of regularisation in service. The authorities have already extended the
benefits to the petitioner from 2016, therefore, he is not entitled to any of
the benefits as prayed for.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner was
continuously working as a Work Charged Contingency employee and no
benefits of scheme introduced by the Government/respondents have been
extended to the petitioner on completion of 12 and 24 years respectively.
The reply filed by the respondents could not distinguish the judgment
passed by this Court in the case of K.L.Asre (supra) which has attained
finality upto the Supreme Court.
In such circumstances, this petition is disposed of directing the
petitioner to file a fresh representation along with all the relevant
documents including the orders passed by this Court in the case of
K.L.Asre (supra) to the respondent No.4 within a period of 15 days from
today, in case such representation is filed the respondent No.4 is directed
to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a period
of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in the
light of the judgment passed in the case of K.L.Asre (supra).
If the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits as claimed by him,
the same be extended to the petitioner within a further period of two
months thereof.
With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
(Vishal Mishra)
Judge
AM.
Digitally signed by ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2021.10.27 09:40:58 +05'30'
