Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Kumar Bhargava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 March, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
W.P. No.8761-2019
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.8761 of 2019
Between:-
1. RAJENDRA KUMAR BHARGAVA S/O LATE SHRI
VISHNU PRASAD BHARGAVA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED ASSISTANT GRADE III, R/O
MISHRA COLONY, RAJ PAL CHOWK, CHHINDWARA,
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. TEJRAM VIRULKAR S/O LATE SHRI BAPUJI
VILURKAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED ASSISTANT GRADE III, R/O WARD NO. 8
CORPORATIVE BANK COLONY NEAR DEVI MANDIR,
CHHINDWARA, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANIRUDH PRASAD PANDEY, LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
COMMISSIONER SAH SANCHALAK HORTICULTURE
FORM FORESTRY 6TH MALA VINDHARHAL BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JOINT DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE, FORM
FORESTRY, DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NEAR ALGIN
HOSPITAL, JABALPUR, DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE, BEHIND BUS
STAND MOHAN NAGAR, CHHINDWARA, DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JOINT DIRECTOR, ACCOUNT & TREASURY,
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL LINES JABALPUR,
DISTRICT-JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, CHHINDWARA, DISTT.
2
W.P. No.8761-2019
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. MANMOHAN MAHESHWARI, ASSISTANT GRADE II
OFFICE OF THE HORTICULTURE FORM FORESTRY
VIDISHA, DISTRICT VIDISHA (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 impugned order dated
28.02.2019 Ann.P/7. Issued by the respondents Further kindly be pleased
to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide
benefits of the III time pay scale with grade pay 3200 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."
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner No.1 was
appointed on 01.07.1981 whereas the petitioner No.2 was appointed on
07.07.1981 in the respondent department. After completion of satisfactory service,
petitioner No.1 retired from the post of Assistant Grade-III on 30.06.2016 whereas
petitioner No.2 retired from the post of Assistant Grade-III on 31.03.2015. On
28.05.2013, the petitioners were found fit for promotion on the post of
Accountant/Assistant Grade-II, however, both the petitioners due to personal
W.P. No.8761-2019
difficulties had forgiven the promotions. As a consequence, the promotion order of
the petitioners dated 28.05.2013 was cancelled vide order dated 22.08.2013. The
respondents refused to grant 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
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 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,
W.P. No.8761-2019
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 petitioners were promoted on 28.05.2013
as Accountant/Assistant Grade II which 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:-
W.P. No.8761-2019
^^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
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.
W.P. No.8761-2019
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. In the present case, the petitioners were promoted w.e.f.
28.05.2013 which they 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 petitioners. Moreover, the circulars dated 23.09.2002 as well as 24.01.2008
W.P. No.8761-2019
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 28.02.2019 (Annexure-P/7). The writ petition fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
DPS
Digitally signed by DHEERAJ PRATAP
SINGH
Date: 2022.04.01 10:53:37 +05'30'
