Babulal Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1808 MP

                                    1

          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         W.P.No.27240/2021
        Babulal Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.
Gwalior, Dated:.09.02.2022

      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners.

      Shri   R.P.    Singh,   learned   Government     Advocate     for

respondents/State.

With consent heard finally.

Through this petition, petitioners are crestfallen by the action

and inaction of the respondents whereby they have not granted

benefit of second kramonnati despite completing 24 years of service.

Effectively, they are also aggrieved by the order dated 05.05.2020

(Annexure P-1) and order dated 04.01.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed

by District Education Officer, District Morena whereby claims of the

petitioners have been rejected.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that in January, 2019

petitioners who were teachers in School Education Department were

sanctioned the benefit of second kramonnati w.e.f. 01.08.2003

despite the fact that they had completed 24 years of service much

prior to the said date. Therefore, persons like petitioners and other

similarly situated have filed W.P.No.22835/2019, seeking benefits in

terms of the judgment passed in the case of Smt. Prerna Koranne

Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. in W.P.No.6773/2006 vide order dated

26.04.2007 wherein it has been held that the teachers are also entitled

for second kramonnati w.e.f. 19.04.1999. It is relevant to mention

that said judgment was in respect of teachers of School Education

Department as well as Tribal Welfare and therefore, for both these

departments, controversy stands concluded.

3. Writ Petition No.22835/2019 as referred above was disposed

of vide order dated 18.11.2019 with a direction to take action in

terms of aforesaid judgment within the period of three months. It

appears that respondents passed the impugned order dated

05.05.2020 (Annexure P-1) wherein considering the claims of

petitioners and rejected the same on the ground that as per circular

dated 26.04.2017 issued by GAD, Bhopal, petitioners are entitled to

get benefit of second kramonnati after completion of 24 years of

service. Another reason given was that the petitioners who are

teaching staff of Grant-In-Aided Institution therefore, they are not

entitled to get the benefit as claimed by them.

4. It is the submission of counsel for the petitioners that

petitioners are teaching staff of Grant-In-Aided Institution and they

are also entitled for the same benefit as that of Government

Institutions. He relied upon the bunch of writ petitions decided by the

coordinate bench of this Court in which leading case was

W.P.No.1524/2013 (Arun Kumar Singh Vs. State of M.P. and

Ors.) vide order dated 08.12.2014, this Court found the claim of

Teaching Staff of Grant-In-Aided Institution at par with Government

Institutions and held that petitioners and other similarly situated

Teaching Staff of Grant-In-Aided Institutions are entitled for second

kramonnati on completion of 12/24 years of service as the case may

be.

5. It is further submitted that earlier this controversy has come to

an end when the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.6773/2006

(s) Smt. Prerna Koranne W/o Shri Pramod Koranne Vs. State of M.P.

and others vide order dated 26.04.2007 decided the case wherein the

Teaching Staff of School Education and Tribal Welfare Department

were found to be entitled for the benefit of second kramonnati w.e.f.

19.04.1999 and not from 01.08.2003 (as fixed by circular dated

03.09.2005). Therefore, when teaching staff of both the departments

were found entitled and later on, in the case of Arun Kumar (supra)

also found entitled being teaching staff of Grant-In-Aided Institutions

then controversy remains no longer res integra. Approach of

authority appears to be erroneous and illegal. He further referred the

circular dated 26.04.2017 which is being relied upon by the DEO

Morena in its order dated 05.05.2020 but said circular appears to be

based upon earlier circular dated 03.09.2005 and said circular dated

03.09.2005 eclipsed in judgment pronounced by this Court in the

case of Prerna Koranne (supra). Therefore, circulars on which

respondents rest their case do not have sufficient substance and

legality to stand.

6. Counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and

submits that petitioners are not entitled for the benefit as discussed in

orders dated 05.05.2020 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 04.01.2021

(Annexure P-2).

7. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents

appended thereto.

8. This is the case where petitioner who are teaching staff of

Grant-In-Aided Institution are seeking benefit of second kramonnati

after completion of 24 years w.e.f. 19.04.1999.

9. Perusal of order dated 26.04.2007 passed in Prerna Koranne

(supra) reveals that coordinate Bench quashed the circular dated

03.09.2005 and directed the respondents to grant the benefit of

second kramonnati to teaching staff of Tribal Welfare and School

Education Department w.e.f. 19.04.1999. Thereafter, question

remained only of teaching staff of Grant-In-Aided Institutions and

that aspect has been clarified by the another coordinate Bench in the

case of Arun Kumar (supra) and bunch of other writ petitions (at

Gwalior Bench) vide order dated 08.12.2014 (filed as Annexure P-3),

whereas teaching staff of Grant-In-Aided Institutions were found to

be entitled for the benefit of second kramonnati w.e.f. 19.04.1999.

10. Considering the above controversy in detail and based upon

the judgment already pronounced in the realm of second kramonnati

vis a vis teaching staff of Grant-In-Aided Institution, it appears that

approach of respondents is erroneous and illegal. When the circular

dated 03.09.2005 has already been quashed by the coordinate Bench

in the case of Prerna Koranne (supra) and said judgment attained

finality till Apex Court, then based upon the said circular, if any

subsequent circular dated 26.04.2017 appears, then it cannot be a

basis for denial of legitimate rights of petitioners, because

controversy otherwise resolved by the coordinate Bench of this

Court. In cumulative analysis, orders dated 05.05.2020 (Annexure P-

1) and 04.01.2021(Annexure P-2) deserve to be quashed. So they are.

Impugned orders dated 05.05.2020 and 04.01.2021 are hereby

quashed.

11. Petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of second kramonnati

w.e.f. 19.04.1999. Respondents are directed to settle the due claims

of petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of certified

copy of this order.

12. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

(Anand Pathak) Judge Ashish*

ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH CHAURASIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,

CHAUR st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=bf81a9adb1da24e4bc7b519515 4c3d4de08c6bb9303e52e2e7e728d9bac 85bd3, pseudonym=CA2EA6EDDF504F8F9C2790 FA9A0FD201D0242B64,

ASIA serialNumber=A926F3CBF979ECA6A4C4 77577EEDBA3AB4F94593A930B98DAE1B 0AD16F90B5FD, cn=ASHISH CHAURASIA Date: 2022.02.10 18:33:11 +05'30'