Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kashiram Ben vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 7 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 25470 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
KASHIRAM BEN S/O LATE GINNARI LAL BEN, AGED
ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED HEAD
MASTER GOVT MIDDLE SCHOOL GHUGHRA (RITHI
DISTT KATNI MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI U.S. JAISWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF
TREASURY ACCOUNTS AND PENSION JABALPUR,
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KATNI
DISTRICT JABALPURKATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER (ACCOUNT
AND PENSION) DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, RITHI DISTT.
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. THE SANKUL PRINCIPAL, GOVT. HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, BILHARI RITHI DISTT.
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIKRAM CHOUDHARY - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETI TIWARI
Signing time: 12/11/2023
10:36:02 AM
2
following:
ORDER
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner was retired on the post of Head
Master who has been denied the benefit of FR-22D on account of his
promotion from the post of Assistant Teacher to Upper Division Teacher.
3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of
FR-22D. The petitioner approached this Court earlier also by preferring the
W.P. 9792/2017, wherein the order was passed on 18.08.2017 and the petition
was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to examine the petitioner's
case in the light of the Judgment of Dayaram Patidar passed in W.P.
No.1104/2001 and to pass the necessary orders within a period of 6 months
from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
4. It appears that on 18.02.2022, Principal Government Higher Secondary
School, Bilhari Block Rithi District Katni has issued a letter to the District
Education Officer, Katni, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner is not
entitled for the benefit of the Fundamental Rule, FR-22D.
5. The petitioner has pointed out that the said letter has been issued in
contravention of the circular No.F7-06/07/20-4 dated 08.01.2008 and according
to the said circular, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of FR-22D.
6. Despite the order passed by this Court, no speaking order was passed
in the matter after considering the case of Dayaram Patidar. The petitioner
submitted that the representation was submitted on 06.04.2021 which is also
pending.
7. The Co-oridinate Bench in the matter of Ram Siya Sharma Vs. State
of M.P. and Ors. in W.P. No.24 of 2010 (s) decided on 27.11.2012 reads as
under:-
"6. The reasons for grant of Krammonati and F.R.
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 the stagnation, he is being granted financial up-
gradation which does not involve any change of nature of
duties and responsibilities. In other words, upon grnant of
Krammonati, the employee performs same nature of duties
with same designation, but gets higher scale of pay,
whereas F.R. 22-D is given when employee is promoted
from one post to another carrying same pay scale but
having greater responsibilities and duties. Petitioner's
specific ascertain that the post of Head Master is carrying
greater responsibilities and duties is not disputed by the
other side. Thus, F.R. 22-D is clearly applicable. This
Court is 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 F.R. 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 of F.R. 22-D to the petitioner on grant of financial
up-gradation. Consequently, the recovery arising out of
taking away the benefit of F.R. 22-D is also impermissible.
7. Resultantly, petition is allowed. The respondents
are directed to restore the benefit of F.R. 22-D to the
petitioner from due date with all consequential benefits.
Recovery to that extent is also set aside. No costs."
8. The judgment passed in the matter of Ram Siya Sharma (supra) is
squarely applicable to the present matter and in view of the same, the present
petition is allowed.
9. The respondents are directed to restore the benefit of F.R. 22-D to the
petitioner from due date with all consequential benefits.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
R
