Mohammad Arif Mansoori vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3665 MP

                                 1

                                                        W.P. No.27199-2018



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                              BEFORE

        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                     ON THE 15th OF MARCH, 2022

                  WRIT PETITION No. 27199 of 2018


     Between:-
1.   MOHAMMAD ARIF MANSOORI S/O SHRI GULAM
     MOHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
     UPPER DIVISION TEACHER R/O SUTAR KHANA MARG,
     NEAR LAKKADKHANA, TIKAMGARH, DISTRICT
     TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH) 472001

2.   RAKESH KUMAR JAIN S/O SHRI BABULAL JAIN, AGED
     ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UPPER DIVISION
     TEACHER    R/O  NEW    CIVIL LINE    COLONY,
     TIKAMGARH, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
     PRADESH) 472001

3.   HAMID KHAN S/O SHRI ALLADIN, AGED ABOUT 45
     YEARS, OCCUPATION: UPPER DIVISION TEACHER
     R/O GRAM POST : BAMHORI (BARANA) TAHSIL
     LIDHORA,    DISTRICT TIKAMGARH    (MADHYA
     PRADESH) 472001
                                                       .....PETITIONERS
     (BY SHRI MANOJ CHANSORIYA, LEARNED COUNSEL
     FOR THE PETITIONERS)

1.   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
     PRINCIPAL  SECRETARY,   SCHOOL    EDUCATION
     DEPARTMENT,   MINISTRY,   VALLABH   BHAWAN
     BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   JOINT DIRECTOR, TREASURY, ACCOUNT AND
     PENSION, SAGAR DIVISION, SAGAR (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

3.   DISTRICT   EDUCATION  OFFICER   TIKAMGARH
     DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.   DISTRICT      TREASURY/PENSION         OFFICER
     TIKAMGARH,   DISTRICT TIKAMGARH       (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                                           2

                                                                  W.P. No.27199-2018



     (BY SHRI JUBIN PRASAD, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER
     FOR THE RESPONDENTS/STATE)


...................................................................................................
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:


                                     ORDER

Vide order dated 02.12.2021, this Court had granted one more

opportunity of four weeks to the State to file the reply, failing which the matter

shall be heard without reply. Since the reply has not been filed, therefore, this

matter is heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"(1) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and other appropriate writs by quashing impugned order dated 03-10-2018 contained in Annexure P/16 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of FR 22-D to the petitioners on promotion on the post of UDT and accordingly fixation of their pay by paying all consequential benefits along with interest @ 12% p.a., in the interest of justice.

(2) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners."

3. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioners are Upper

Division Teachers. Initially they were appointed as Assistant Teacher. As per

circular dated 03.09.2005, on completion of 12 years of service, senior pay scale

W.P. No.27199-2018

was granted to all the petitioners by a common order dated 09.08.2010 in the pay

scale of Rs.5000-8000 which was subsequently revised in the pay scale of

Rs.9300-34800+3200. Thereafter, the petitioners were promoted to the post of

Upper Division Teacher in the same pay scale i.e. Rs.9300-34800+3200 without

any financial upgradation. Vide the impugned order dated 03.10.2018, Annexure

P/16, the benefit of FR 22-D has been denied to the petitioners on the ground that

the post of Assistant Teacher and Upper Division Teacher carries different grade

pay and pay scale. The petitioners have been promoted in the year 2013 and as

such, they are already drawing the higher pay scale and therefore, FR 22-D is not

applicable. Consequently, the benefit is not extended to them. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court

reported in 2004 (3) MPLJ 397 (R.S. Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others)

and submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the said judgment. Learned

counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No.5137/2015(s)

(Mahendra Kumar Shukla and another Vs. State of M.P. and others) on

05.05.2016 in support of his contention.

5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submitted that the

petitioners have already enjoyed the benefit of kramonnati pay scale and

therefore, no benefit under FR 22-D is permissible.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The reasons for grant of Krammonati and FR 22-D are different. It has no

co-relation with each other. It is settled in law that benefit of Krammonati or

financial up-gradation is granted when employee is not getting promotion for a

considerable long time/stipulated period. To avoid stagnation, he being granted

W.P. No.27199-2018

financial up-gradation which does not involve change of nature of duties and

responsibilities. In other words, upon grant of Krammonati, the employee

performs same nature of duties with same designation, but gets scale of pay,

whereas FR 22-D is given when employee is promoted from one post to another

carrying same pay but having greater responsibilities and duties. Petitioners'

specific assertion that the post of Upper Division Teacher is carrying greater

responsibilities and duties is not disputed by the other side. Thus, FR 22-D is

clearly applicable. This Court in R.S. Sikarwar (supra) has also considered the

same and decided to extend the benefit to the petitioner. Consequently, the stand

of the respondents that FR 22-D is not applicable because of grant of financial up-

gradation is without any basis and substance. No provision is shown to this Court

which deprives the benefit FR 22-D to the petitioners on grant of financial up-

gradation.

8. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to

extend the benefit of FR 22-D to the petitioners from the due date with all

consequential benefit.

No order as to costs.

(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE vc Digitally signed by VARSHA CHOURASIYA Date: 2022.03.16 17:34:25 +05'30'