Anil Kumar Mehra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4467 MP

                                1

                                                     W.P. No.22918-2019



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                             BEFORE

        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                      ON THE 30th OF MARCH, 2022

                 WRIT PETITION No. 22918 of 2019


     Between:-
1.   ANIL KUMAR MEHRA S/O SHRI KANCHEDI LAL
     MEHRA OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT TEACHER GOVT.
     SCHOOL MADESUR R/O MADESUR, CHAWARPATHA,
     DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                      .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI ANIRUDH PRASAD PANDEY,     LEARNED
     COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

     AND

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

2.   COMMISSIONER,       DIRECTORATE       PUBLIC
     INSTRUCTION BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.   JOINT DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, BHOPAL
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.   DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, NARSINGHPUR
     DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JILA PANCHAYAT,
     NARSINGHPUR, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

6.   SANKUL PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL,
     MADESUR, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

7.   DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, NARSINGHPUR
     DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
     (BY SHRI SANJEEV SINGH, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER
                                           2

                                                                 W.P. No.22918-2019



     FOR THE RESPONDENTS/STATE)
...................................................................................................
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:


                                      ORDER

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:-

"a. To issue a writ in the like nature for quashment of impugned order dated 28.08.2019 issued by the respondent no.6.

b. To direct the respondents to remove the anomaly occurred in the pay scale of the petitioner and the respondents be commanded to restore the petitioner pay scale of the petitioner. c. To direct the respondent no.4 to consider and decide the pending representation (Ann. P/7) submitted by the petitioner with in some time bound period. d. To call for the records from the respondents regarding petitioner case.

e. Any other relief deemed fit on facts and circumstances of the instant case."

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed

in the year 1998. After completing probation period, the petitioner was regularized

on 01.12.2001 on the post of Shiksha Karmi in the respondent department. The

petitioner was found fit for promotion on the post of Adhyapak, however, due to

personal difficulties, he had forgone the promotion. The respondents refused to

grant time scale (Kramonnati) vide order dated 28.08.2019 (Annexure P/1) as the

petitioner did not join the promoted post. As such petitioner being aggrieved, has

approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case of the petitioner

W.P. No.22918-2019

is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Lokendra

Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. & another (2010 (2) MPHT 163 (DB). The

petitioner is entitled to grant Kramonnati on completing 12 years of service in the

cadre of Assistant Grade-III. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

at Indore in W.A. No.939/2017 (Finance Department & Others Vs. Gendalal

Arniya), as well as, that rendered in W.A. No.21/2017 (The State of M.P. &

Others Vs. Kanhaiyalal Jaitpuriya).

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the

claim for grant of Kramonnati has rightly been rejected in the light of the Circular

dated 24.01.2008 wherein Clause 13 provides that if a person after accepting the

benefits of Kramonnati is granted regular promotion and the same is refused by

him, in that case Kramonnati granted earlier cannot be taken away but after

refusing the promotion, the petitioners would not be entitled for grant of

Kramonnati.

6. It is further submitted that the facts in the case of Lokendra Kumar

Agrawal (supra) are different to those in present case, inasmuch as in that case,

petitioner therein had been granted timescale w.e.f. 19.10.2005 and thereafter had

been promoted on the post of Head-clerk, which had been forgiven by him.

Consequent to foregoing of such promotion, the timescale granted to him was also

withdrawn. It was in this context that it has been held that on account of refusal to

join on the promotional post he had already suffered by forgoning the benefit and,

therefore, on the basis of executive instructions the benefit of timescale could not

W.P. No.22918-2019

have been withdrawn because the same would amount to reduction in pay and the

aforesaid action was held to be in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of

India, whereas in the present case the petitioner was promoted on 15.10.2014 as

Adhyapak which was forgone by him. After forgoing such promotion, the

petitioner is not entitled for grant of time scale.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in the case of

Vishnu Prasad Verma Vs. Industrial Court of M.P. (W.P. No.19767/2019

decided on 31.01.2019, it was held that the petitioner was promoted on the post of

Headmaster which was forgone by him, as a result of which, he had waived his

right to get the benefit of Kramonnati which became due to him subsequent to his

promotion.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents has also pointed out that the Circular

dated 05.07.2002/23.09.2002 in which it is clearly mentioned that in case if a

person forgoes his promotion then he would not be entitled for Kramonnati. The

Circular dated 05.07.2002/23.09.2002 is reproduced as under:-

^^e/; izns'k 'kklu

lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx

ea=ky;

dzekad ,Q-1&[email protected]@[email protected] Hkksiky] fnukad 5 tqykbZ] 2002

23 flrEcj] 2002

izfr] 'kklu ds leLr foHkkx] v/;{k] jktLo eaMy] e-iz-] Xokfy;j] leLr foHkkxk/;{k]

W.P. No.22918-2019

leLr laHkkxk;qDr] leLr dysDVj] leLr eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh ftyk iapk;r] e/;izns'kA

fo"k;%& 'kkldh; lsodksa ds fy;s dzeksUufr ;kstukA

lanHkZ%& bl foHkkx dk Kki Øekad ,Q 1&[email protected]@os [email protected]] fnukad 31-03-

2001 ,oa fnukad 9-4-2001-

lanfHkZr Kkiu }kjk ;s funsZ'k tkjh fd;s x;s Fks fd ^^ftu ik= deZpkfj;ksa us mPp inksa ij inksUufr ysus ls ;k inksUufr in ij tkus ls badkj fd;k gS] os deZpkjh ØeksUufr ;kstuk ds ik= ugha gksaxsaA mUgsa mDr ;kstuk dk YkkHk izkIr ugha gksxkA ^^

2- 'kklu ds /;ku esa ;g ckr vkbZ gS fd dqN 'kkldh; lsod ØeksUufr ;kstuk ds ykHk izkIr gksus ds ckn inksUufr NksM+ nsrs gS] D;ksafd mUgs mPp osrueku dk ykHk ØeksUufr ;kstuk ds varxZr iwoZ ls gh izkIr gksrk jgrk gSA

3- ØeksUufr ;kstuk] inksUufr ugha fey ikus ds dkj.k ,d oSdfYid ,oa rnFkZ O;oLFkk gS tks 'kkldh; lsod dks yEch vof/k rd inksUufr ugha fey ikus ds ,ot esa nh tkrh gSA

4- jkT; 'kklu }kjk fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd ,sls 'kkldh; lsod] ftUgsa ØeksUufr dk ykHk fn;k x;k gS] dks tc mPp in ij inksUur fd;k tkrk gS vkSj og ,slh inksUufr ysus ls badkj djrk gS rks mls iznku fd, x, ØeksUufr osrueku dk ykHk Hkh lekIr dj fn;k tkosA lkFk gh] inksUufr vkns'k esa Hkh bldk Li"V mYys[k fd;k tkos fd ;fn 'kkldh; lsod bl inksUufr dk ifjR;kx djrk gS rks mls inksUufr ds ,ot esa] iwoZ esa iznku fd, x, ØeksUufr osrueku dk ykHk Hkh lekIr dj fn;k tkosaxkA

5- ;g vkns'k foRr foHkkx ds i`"Bkadu Øekad [email protected]@[email protected]@pkj] fnukad 23-09-2002 }kjk egkys[kkdkj] e/;izns'k] Xokfy;j dks i`"Bkafdr fd;k x;k gSA

e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj] gLrk @& ¼ds-,y- nhf{kr½ vij lfpo] e/;izns'k 'kklu] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx^^

Accordingly, it is submitted that no interference is warranted in the order

impugned.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the following

question crops up for consideration "Whether a person who has consciously and

deliberately forgone his promotion prior to becoming entitled for grant of

Kramonnati is eligible for Kramonnati on the ground that he could not be

W.P. No.22918-2019

promoted even after putting 12 years of service in a particular cadre and whether

after forgoing the promotion, an employee can claim Kramonnati subsequent to

the date of promotion order ?"

11. In the case of Vishnu Prasad Verma (supra), the entitlement of

Kramonnati had accrued in favour of the petitioner therein prior to his refusing

promotion. It was in this context that the writ appellate Court in W.A.

No.1181/2019 has agreed with the principle of law laid down in the case of

Lokendra Kumar Agrawal (Supra), holding that the benefit of Kramonnati

granted from an earlier point of time could not have been recovered merely

because later the incumbent when promoted from some date in future had

foregone such promotion. In the present case, the petitioner was promoted w.e.f.

15.10.2014 which he had forgone.

12. Consequently, the decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in

Gendala Arniya (supra) and Kanhaiyalal Jaitpuriya (supra) which have been

rendered on the basis of Lokendra Kumar Agrawal (Supra), are of no avail to

the petitioner. Moreover, the circulars dated 23.09.2002 as well as 24.01.2008

have not been put to challenge. In identical situation, the Division Bench of the

Co-ordinate Bench at Gwalior in WA No.515/2020 has upheld the order of the

learned Single Judge wherein the learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner

therein was promoted on the post of Headmaster which was undergone by him, as

a result of which, he had waived his right to get the benefit of Kramonnati which

became due to him subsequent to his promotion and dismissed the Writ Appeal.

Besides, if the proposition of the petitioner that even after refusing promotion he

can avail Kramonnati is accepted, then the raison d'être of the financial-

W.P. No.22918-2019

upgradation scheme which is to weed out career stagnation of employees, would

be frustrated. The day petitioner refused to accept promotion, he could no longer

be called a stagnating employee.

13. In view of the aforesaid, no fault could be found in the impugned order

dated 28.08.2019 (Annexure-P/1). The writ petition fails and is, accordingly,

dismissed.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE vc Digitally signed by VARSHA CHOURASIYA Date: 2022.04.05 11:10:55 +05'30'