Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxmi Narayan Nagariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 March, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
W.P. No.17119-2021
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. 17119 of 2021
Between:-
1. LAXMI NARAYAN NAGARIYA S/O LATE SHRI RAM
GOPAL NAGARIYA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER
R/O WARD NO.7, HARIHAR ROAD HARPALPUR
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (M.P.) PIN CODE 471111
2. SMT. SAVITA KHERA W/O SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN
NAGARIYA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
WORKING AS ASSTANT TEACHER R/O WARD NO.7,
HARIHAR ROAD HARPALPUR DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (M.P.) PIN CODE 471111
3. BRAJ BHUSHAN PATHAK S/O SHRI SUKHLAL PATHAK,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WORKING AS
ASSISTANT TEACHER R/O WARD NO.14, SHIKSHAK
COLONY HARPALPUR DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (M.P.)
PIN CODE 471111
4. SURESH CHANDRA GUPTA S/O SHRI NARAYAN DAS
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER R/O WARD NO.4,
RATHROAD HARPALPUR DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(M.P.) PIN CODE 471111
5. AZEEZ KHAN S/O SHRI ALLADEEN SHEKH, AGED
ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED ASSISTANT
TEACHER R/O WARD NO.3, MANTRI COLONY
KOHANIA ROAD, HARPALPUR DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (M.P.) PIN CODE 471111
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANIRUDH PRASAD PANDEY, LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA
2
W.P. No.17119-2021
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER, DIRECTORATE OF TREASURY AND
ACCOUNTS, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
GOVERNMENT OF MP MANTRALAYA BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, GAUTAM
NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, CHHATARPUR
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, CHHINDWARA, DISTT.
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. JOINT DIRECTOR, ACCOUNT AND TREASURY
(PENSION) DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SAGAR DISTRICT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....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
petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"In view of the facts and grounds stated herein above, the petitioners most
respectfully pray to this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the
following relieves in favour of the petitioners:-
The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned
order dated 05.01.2021 (Ann.P/3). Hon'ble court further may kindly issue
a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide benefit of III
Kramonnati, from due date, in the light of the (ann. P/5 & 6) to the
petitioners 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."
W.P. No.17119-2021
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner No.1, who is
working on the post of Assistant Teacher in Government P.S. Ward No.3
Harpalpur, Sankul Government Girls Higher Secondary School Harpalpur District
Chhatarpur (M.P.) was appointed in the respondent department on 01.02.1980,
petitioner No.2, who is working on the post of Assistant Teacher in Government
P.S. Ward No.3 Harpalpur, Sankul Government Boys Higher Secondary School
Harpalpur, District Chhatarpur (M.P.) was appointed on 01.07.1982, petitioner
No.4, who is working on the post of Assistant Teacher in Government P.S.
Papatua, Sankul Government Girls Boys Higher Secondary School Harpalpur
District Chhatarpur (M.P.) whereas petitioner No.3 was retired on 31.01.2018
from the post of Assistant Teacher, Government Girls Higher Secondary School,
Harpalpur, Block Nayagaon, District Chhatarpur (M.P.) and petitioner No.5 was
retired on 31.01.2020 from the post of Assistant Teacher, Government P.S.
Kakunpura Sankul Government Girls Higher Secondary School Harpalpur District
Chhatarpur (M.P.). The respondent department has given promotion to the
petitioners but due to personal difficulties they had forgone the promotion.
Consequently, the respondents withheld the benefit of time scale (Kramonnati).
As such petitioners being aggrieved, have approached this Court by filing the
present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the case of the petitioners
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
W.P. No.17119-2021
the cadre of Assistant Grade-III. In support of his contention, learned counsel for
the petitioners 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
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 petitioners were promoted but the said
W.P. No.17119-2021
promotion was forgiven by them. After forgoing such promotion, the petitioners
are 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 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
W.P. No.17119-2021
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
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
W.P. No.17119-2021
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.
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
W.P. No.17119-2021
be called a stagnating employee.
13. In view of the aforesaid, no fault could be found in the impugned order
dated 05.01.2021 (Annexure-P/3). The writ petition fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
vc
Digitally signed by
VARSHA CHOURASIYA
Date: 2022.04.05
11:10:01 +05'30'
