Madhya Pradesh High Court
Phool Chand Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 March, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
W.P. No.19520-2020
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.19520 of 2020
Between:-
1. PHOOL CHAND KUSHWAHA S/O LATE RAM GOPAL
KUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
WORKING AS UDT R/O GOVERNMENT GIRLS HIGH
SCHOOL, RAHATGAON, BLOCK TIMARANI DISTRICT
HARDA M.P. PIN CODE-461331
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANIRUDH PRASAD PANDEY, LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA,
BHOPAL M.P.
[email protected]
2. COMMISSIONER, DIRECTORATE OF & TREASURIES
AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
GOVERNMENT OF M.P. MANTRALAYA, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH) TELEPHONE NO.0755-2676020
[email protected]
3. COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, GAUTAM
NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
TELEPHONE NO.0755-2583653
[email protected]
4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, HARDA DISTRICT
HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
[email protected]
5. JOINT DIRECTOR, ACCOUNT & TREASURY (PENSION)
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
TELEPHONE NO.0755-2551412
[email protected]
2
W.P. No.19520-2020
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJEEV SINGH, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER
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:-
"In view of the facts and grounds stated herein above, the petitioner most
respectfully pray to this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the
following relieves in favour of the petitioner:-
The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash / set aside the
impugned order dated 30.05.2020 (Ann.P/4) Hon'ble court further may
kindly issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to
release/provide benefits of the II & III Kramonati, from due date, in the
light of the (ann.P/6 & 7), to the petitioner with interest, in the interest of
justice. Including all the consequential benefits admissible under the law
relevant to the subjects.
Such other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case
including costs of the petition may also be awarded."
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The present petitioner was
appointed on 05.02.1983 in the respondent department. The petitioner is currently
working on the post of UDT in Government Girls High School at Rahatgaon,
District Harda (M.P.). After completion of satisfactory service, petitioner was
granted benefit of IInd and IIIrd time pay scale (Kramonnati) respectively.
Subsequently, the benefits of the IInd and IIIrd time pay scale (Kramonnati) was
reduced. Therefore, the petitioner filed representation before the respondent No.4
i.e. District Education Officer (D.E.O.), Harda. The said representation was
rejected by impugned order dated 30.05.2020 on the ground that petitioner refused
to accept the benefits of promotion in the year 2016 and therefore cannot be
granted benefits of time pay scale (Kramonnati). As such petitioner being
aggrieved, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
W.P. No.19520-2020
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case of the petitioner
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
petitioners are 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 petitioner 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 forgoing the benefit and,
therefore, on the basis of executive instructions the benefit of timescale could not
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 granted promotion, which
was forgone by him. After foregoing such promotion, the petitioner is not entitled
for grant of time scale.
W.P. No.19520-2020
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 Kramonnti. 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]
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
W.P. No.19520-2020
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
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.
W.P. No.19520-2020
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 petitioners. 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-
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 30.05.2020 (Annexure-P/4). The writ petition fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
DPS
Digitally signed by DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH
Date: 2022.04.05 19:09:21 +05'30'
