Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Gopal Kunwar Chandrawat vs Tribal Affairs Department on 18 April, 2022
Author: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 9511 of 2019
Between:-
SMT. GOPAL KUNWAR CHANDRAWAT,
W/O LATE. SHRI VISHAN SINGH CHANDRAWAT,
AGED 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOSUEWIFE,
R/O VILLAGE -RAIPURIYA TEHSIL PETLAWAD,
DISTRICT-JHABUA (MP)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHASHANK PATWARI, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
1.
TRIBAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MP)
COMMISSIONER,
2. TRIBAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,
SATPURA BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MP)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
3. TRIBAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
DISTRICT-JHABUA (MP)
PRINCIPAL GOVT. H. S. SCHOOL RAIPURIA
4.
DISTRICT-JHABUA (MP)
BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
5. TRIBAL AFFAIRS BLOCK,
PETLAWAD, DISTRICT-JHABUA (MP)
2
DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER
6. TREASURY ACCOUNTS AND PESNION DEPARTMENT,
DISTRICT-JHABUA (MP)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRADYUMNA KIBE, GOVT. ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of counsel
for parties.
The petitioner, wife of deceased government servant, has
filed the present Writ Petition, challenging the orders dated
14.05.2018 (Annexure-P/8), 26.09.2018 (Annexure-P/9) and
22.04.2019 (Annexure-P/10) respectively, by which the claim of
FR 22-D has been rejected and recovery has been ordered.
The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the
petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lower Division
Teacher on 25.09.1978 and he was given the benefit of
Kramonnati in the pay scale of Rs.5000- 8000/- with effect from
25.09.1990. His further case is that he was promoted as UDT in
the same payscale and by order dated 04.09.2006 in the pay scale
of Rs.5500-9000/-. Now the respondents, by the impugned order,
have rejected the claim of FR 22-D solely on the ground that since
the petitioner was promoted in the same pay scale, therefore, the
benefit of FR 22-D cannot be given to the petitioner.
The respondents have stated that the impugned order has
been passed since the Office of the Jt. Director, Treasury and
Pension has raised an objection that the petitioner was already
extended the benefit of higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 which is
the pay scale accruing from the proposed promotion, therefore, he
was not entitled to the benefit of FR 22-D.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the controversy involved in the present case is already covered by
the Division Bench judgment in the matter of State of MP and
others Vs. Dayaram Patidar in WP No.1104/2001 dated 4th
October, 2002 and the judgment dated 6/5/2011 in WP(S)
No.5076/2010(S) in the matter of Devisingh Vs. State of MP and
others. Learned counsel for respondents has supported the
impugned order.
I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the
record.
The sole ground on which the rejection order has been
passed is that the petitioner was promoted and on the promoted
post, the same scale was applicable, therefore, the benefit of FR
22-D cannot be granted.
The aforesaid issue has already been decided by the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Dayaram
Patidar (supra) by holding that:
"14. On merits also this petition must fall. An
employee on promotion from a lower post to
higher post is entitled to get his pay fixed in the
pay scale of higher post as per FR.22-D. This
rule gives him weightage of a few increments. It
is true, that the respondent employee was
already getting the pay scale of his new post
even before promotion. But that would not
disentitle him to the benefit under FR.22D. This
rule speaks of promotion from lower post to
higher post not from one scale to another. Scale
of pay is irrelevant in the matter of application
of FR.22-D, which confers some financial
benefit to the employee on promotion which is
logical also. So even when the respondent was
getting same salary while working on lower
post, the benefit of FR.22-D to which he is
otherwise entitled on promotion, cannot be
denied to him.
15. Petitioners' contention that Respondent's pay
fixation has been done under FR.22(a) (ii) which
was financially more beneficial to him, is, not
acceptable to this Court. If factually that is the
position then petitioners are not going to be put
to any financial loss, even, if, they are required
to give benefit of FR.22-D to the Respondent.
Thus, this ground is negatived on petitioners'
own admission made before the Tribunal in their
reply. It has already been held by a Bench of this
Court that circular of the Finance Department
shall not be binding on the Respondent, as
Respondent has to be given benefit from the date
he assumes charge on the promoted post and
financial sanction has no role to play in it.."
It is also noticed that by the same order dated 30/12/2002
another LDT namely Devisingh was promoted in the pay scale of
5000-8000 as UDT along with the petitioner and in the case of
Devisingh (supra) also the similar order of recovery dated 20th
March, 2010 on the same ground was passed and the WP
No.5076/2010(S) filed by Devisingh (supra)has been allowed by this
Court by holding that:-
"The petitioner before this Court has filed this
present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dt.
20/3/10 by which the respondents have revised the pay
fixation of the petitioner and the earlier benefit of pay
fixation by applying FR 22D have been withdrawn.
The contention of the petitioner is that he was
promoted from the post of LDT to UDT in the same
pay scale and the benefit of FR 22D was conferred
upon him on account of his promotion vide order
dt.31/12/02. The contention of the petitioner is that the
benefit of FR 22 D was rightly conferred upon him by
the respondents keeping in view the judgment
delivered by this court in the case of State of MP Vs.
Dayaram Patidar and one another WP No.1104/2001
dt.4/10/02 . This Court has carefully gone through the
aforesaid judgment and the same reveals that in case of
promotion from LDT to UDT the benefit of FR22D
has to be extended as the post of UDT involves higher
responsibility and higher duties and therefore the
respondents were justified in initially granting the
benefit of FR22D to the petitioner and the same has
erroneously been withdrawn by the impugned order
dt.20/3/10 hence the same deserves to be quashed in
the light of the judgment delivered in the case of
Dayaram (supra). This Court has carefully gone
through the judgment delivered in the case of Dayaram
Patidar(supra) and is of the considered opinion that the
petitioner is certainly entitled for grant of benefit under
FR 22 D he was promoted to a post carrying higher
responsibilities. Resultantly, this petition is allowed.
Impugned order dt.20/3/10 is hereby quashed. Any
amount recovered by the respondents be refunded to
the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date
of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the
petitioner shall certainly be entitled for all benefits by
virtue of pay fixation by the respondents in the year
2002 by granting him the benefit of FR 22D. This
petition is allowed. No order as to costs.."
Since the issue involved in the present matter is squarely
covered by the aforesaid order of this Court, therefore, the Writ
Petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 14.05.2018
(Annexure-P/8), 26.09.2018 (Annexure-P/9) and 22.04.2019
(Annexure-P/10) passed by the respondents be quashed. The
respondents are directed to grant the reliefs with regard to death
claims of the petitioner such as regular family pension, gratuity,
leave encashment, GIS and GPF to the petitioner's wife, within a
period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order. Any
amount recovered from the petitioner, in pursuance to the
impugned orders, be also refunded to him within the aforesaid
period. The petitioner will be entitled to all the benefits of the pay
fixation accordingly. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(PRANAY VERMA)
Arun/- JUDGE
ARUN NAIR
2022.04.23 10:19:49
+05'30'
