Bhagwan Das Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5125 MP

                                    1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                              WP No. 4877 of 2016
       (BHAGWAN DAS SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS)

Dated : 08-04-2022
      Shri Alok Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Abhishek Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

The petitioner, who had attained the age of superannuation while serving as an Accountant has filed this writ petition claiming second kramonnati in pursuance to the circulars issued by the State Government dated 21.03.1983 and 19.04.1999. The case of the petitioner is that he was promoted to the post of Accountant from

the post of UDC and the promotion to the post of Accountant was made in the same pay scale i.e., Rs.4000-6000. However, the petitioner is entitled to get the kramonnati vetanman of 4500-7000/-

Considering the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of Single Bench in the matter of Sriram Gokhale vs. State of M. P. and others decided on 23.08.2013 passed in W. P. No.9841/2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the out set has drawn the attention of this Court towards a judgment delivered in the case of State of M.P. & Ors. Vs.

Ramkrishna (WA No.55/2012) and his contention is that in similar circumstances involving the same controversy, a Division Bench of this Court has upheld the judgment delivered by the Single Bench, by which the impugned order passed by the respondents in the similar circumstances of the case, has been set aside. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Ramkrishna (WA No.55/2012) has held as under :-

“The facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Lower Division Teacher on 21.01.1972 in the pay scale of Rs. 169-300/-. The respondent’s cadre was changed as an L.D.C. On 31.05.1974 in the same pay scale of Rs. 169- 300/-. The respondent was promoted as U.D.C. On 22-01- 1981 in the pay scale of Rs. 195-330/-. On 01.12.1986 again respondent was promoted on the post of Accountant in the pay scale of Rs. 635-

950/-. Thereafter, the state Government

implemented recommendation of Singh Deo Committee and cadre of U.D.C. and Accountant were merged in one pay scale of Rs. 1200- 2040/- w.e.f 01.04.1997.The Revision of pay Rules 1990 came into force w.e.f. 01-01-1986 which had provided pay scale of Accountant as Rs. 1200- 2040/- and the pay scale of U.D.C. as Rs. 1190- 1800/-. The Singh Deo Committee report was accepted and both the cadres of U.D.C. and Accountant were merged into one cadre in one pay band of Rs. 1200- 2040/-. As per the recommendation of the committee the pay scale of U.D.C. was made at par with the Accountant i.e. Rs. 1200-2040/-. When Pay Scales were merged the respondent herein was allowed benefit of second Kramonnati w.e.f. the order dated 17.01.1995. The respondent was given the benefit till attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, the state Government had issued an order dated 15.03.2010 by which the aforesaid benefit of Second Kramonnati was withdrawn and recovery was directed. This order was under challenge before the writ court. The writ court relying on the earlier judgment of the Single Bench of this court in Prabhat Dongre Vs State of M.P. held that respondent was entitled for second kramonnati, allowed the writ petition and quashed the recovery as was directed against the respondent. This order is under challenge in this writ appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondent was granted two promotions one from the L.D.C. to U.D.C. and another from U.D.C. to Accountant so he was not entitled for the benefit of second kramonnati. Though subsequently pay scale of Accountant and U.D.C. Were made one by upgradation of the pay scale of U.D.C. but respondents was entitled for second kramonnati and the impugned order was rightly issued by the appellants. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that though respondent was promoted from the post of U.D.C to the Accountant but in fact after implementation of recommendation of Singh Deo Committee the aforesaid effect was nullified and both the post of U.D.C. and Accountant were given the same pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/-, which was subsequently revised w.e.f. 01-01-1996 by implementation of Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 so

the respondent was entitled for second kramonnati. The learned single Judge found that on an earlier occasion similar question was decided in writ petition No. 5941/2010 (S) on 01-02-2011 in Prabhat Dongre Vs State of M.P. and it held that in similar circumstances the second kramonnati which was given to Prabhat Dongre was rightly given and withdrawal of second kramonnati was not justified and quashed the order.

The case of Prabhat Dongre was decided on the anvil of another judgement of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.169/2011 State of M.P. and others Vs Nathulal Verma in which similar controversy was decided by the Division Bench and the order passed by the Single Bench was affirmed.

In case of Nathulal (Supra) a Division Bench held thus :-

“On considering the above submissions we find that there is substance in the submissions put forth by the counsel for the respondent. There is no illegality committed by the learned single Judge that up gradation present case and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is impeccable and we have no hesitation in upholding the same. The appeal is thus without merit. Moreover, I.A. No. 1054/11 clearly indicates that there us delay of 295 days occasioned in filling and the same is also hopelessly time barred, Consequently, on this ground also the appeal requires summery burial on merits also as already stated above.

The appellant State has no case and the appeal is, therefore dismissed as being sans merit.â€​ The factual position in the present case is identical and the case is squarely covered with this case. We do not find any reason to differ from the judgment of the State of M.P. and others Vs. Nathulal Verma, the controversy is squarely covered by this case. Apart from this, we find that after merger of pay scale of U.D.C. and Accountant, in fact the effect of earlier promotion was nullified and considering this situation if benefit of second Kramonnati was extended to the respondents such benefit could not have been withdrawn. The learned Single Judge has rightly, quashed the aforesaid withdrawal/ recovery in the which we do not find any error.

In view of the aforesaid decision in the State of M.P. Vs. Nathulal Verma, we find no reason to admit this appeal it is dismissed at the admission stage. No orders as to costs.â€​ The aforesaid judgment has not been disputed by the learned Govt. Advocate and he has fairly stated before this Court that in similar circumstances an order has been passed by this Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court. Resultantly, as the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled for the benefit of second kramonnati in the scale of 4500-7000/- and all the benefits arising thereon. The respondent shall comply with the order of this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition is also allowed. No order as to costs.

Certified copy as per rules.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE

ar

ABDUR RAHMAN 2022.04.11 10:29:56 +05'30'