Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambali Kori vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 8 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 9522 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAMBALI KORI S/O SHRI JAYPAL KORI, AGED ABOUT
64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED AS HEAD MASTER
SANKUL GOVT. PUSHPRAJ BOYS HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL, GOVINDGARH, DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAHUL MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COMMISSIONER TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS
PARYAWAS BHAWAN, 5TH FLOOR, ARERA HILLS,
BHOPAL, (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY AND
ACCOUNTS REWA DIVISION, DISTT. REWA (MP)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SHILPI
PLAZA, A BLOCK, REWA, DISTRICT REWA,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SANKUL PRINCIPAL GOVT. PUSHPRAJ BOYS
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, GOVINDGARH
DISTT. REWA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIKARAM CHOUDHARY - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETI TIWARI
Signing time: 12/11/2023
10:36:02 AM
2
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. It appears that on 08.11.2021, Principal Government Higher Secondary
School, Govindgarh District Rewa has issued a letter to the petitioner on the
basis of the order issued by the Divisional Joint Director, Treasury and
Accounts, Rewa Division, Rewa, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner is
not entitled for the benefit of the Fundamental Rule, FR-22D.
4. The petitioner has pointed out that the said letter has been issued in
contravention of the circular F7-06/07 dated 08.01.2008, in according to the
said circular, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of FR-22D.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relief upon the order passed
by the Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Asha Bajpai Vs. State of M.P.
and others reported in 2015(3) M.P.L.J. 169 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench
after considering the provisions of FR 22-D has opined that FR 22-A (II)
makes it clear that it is applicable to such appointments where new post does
not involve assumption of higher/greater responsibility whereas FR 22-D (I)
makes it clear that it is applicable to a post which carries duties and
responsibilities of greater importance.
6. It is not in dispute that the promotional post of Head Master carries
greater responsibility for the feeder post of UDT.
7. It is further held by the Co-ordinate Bench that case of the petitioner
falls within the ambit of FR 22-D(I) and under FR -22 A(II) and therefore, the
petitioner therein is entitled to get the benefit of the FR 22 -D. The relevant
paragraphs of the said order reads as under:-
"8. It cannot be doubted that promotional post of
Headmistress carries duties and responsibilities of greater nature.
Admittedly, petitioner was getting same pay scale because of her
financial upgradation w.e.f. 1986. In other words, the petitioner was
in the pay scale 1640-2900 before her promotion on the post of
Headmistress which also carries the same scale. In R.S.Sikarwar
(supra), this Court considered this aspect. The same circular dated
25.5.1998 was also taken note of in para 2 of the said judgment.
After considering FR 22-D and FR 22-A, this Court opined that the
Government servant would be entitled to get his pay fixed in
accordance with FR 22-D(i) of the Rules. A plain reading of this
judgment makes it clear that this Court has taken note of the fact that
promotion was made to a post which carried the same pay scale
which employee was already gettingpursuant to grant of Kramonnati
benefits. The judgment of R.S.Sikarwar (supra) is based on the
judgment of Kunti Saxena vs. State of MP. In the said case, it was
held that whenever an employee is promoted to discharge the
functions of higher post with greater responsibility, even if the pay
scale of feeder cadre and promotional post is identical, the employee
has to be paid the benefit of FR 22-D. This Court in Ram Siya
Sharma (supra) considered the purpose of grant of financial
upgradation under Kramonnati Yojna and the purpose of grant of FR
22-D. This Court opined as under in para 6:-
"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 grant 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 assertion 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 in 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."
9. In the light of aforesaid judgments, in my view, the
petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of FR 22-D on the pay scale of
1640-2900.
10. The matter may be viewed from another angle. FR 22-A
(ii) makes it clear that it is applicable to such appointments where
new post does not involve assumption of higher/greater
responsibility whereas FR 22-D (I) makes it clear that it is applicable
to a post which carries duties and responsibilities of greater
importance. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that the
promotional post of Headmistress carries greater responsibility qua
the feeder post of UDT. Thus, petitioner's case falls within the ambit
of FR 22-D(i) and not under FR 22-A(ii). Thus the formula devised
by the respondents and reproduced in para 6 of this order has no
application. Once the petitioner's case is not covered under FR 22-A
(ii), the question of comparing the benefits and granting one benefit
does not arise. Putting it differently, FR 22-D(i) begins with non
obstente clause. It has an overriding effect on other provisions of
Fundamental Rules. Thus, once FR 22-D (I) becomes applicable, it
automatically makes the other provision inapplicable in this regard.
Thus, the contention of department and ground based on FR 22-
A(ii) pales into insignificance. It is noteworthy that when FR came
into being, Kramonnati Yojna was not applicable. Thus, intention of
law makers was to give benefit on the last pay scale enjoyed by the
employee. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit under
FR 22-D on the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900.
11. For this reason, the action of respondents is declared as
illegal. The respondents are directed to grant benefits of FR 22-D to
the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. The said exercise be
completed within 90 days from the date of production of copy of
this order. The petitioner shall get the difference of the amount with
12 per cent interest on delayed payment. In addition, the petitioner
shall get Rs.5000/- as cost for compelling her to file this avoidable
litigation."
9. Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State supported the order passed by the Divisional Joint
Director, Treasury and Accounts, Rewa Division Reawa on 29.10.2021 and the
communication dated 08.11.2021 and submitted that the same have been issued
in accordance with the circular No.F1-5/2007/Niyam/04 dated 09.04.2002
issued by the Finance Department and therefore, the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
10. After hearing the parties and in view of the judgment passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Asha Bajpai (supra) as well as the order
passed by the Division Bench in W.P. No.1104/2001 (State of M.P. Vs.
Dayaram Patidar) decided on 04.10.2002, I deem it proper to allow the
petition preferred by the petitioner and the order passed by the Director
Treasury and Accounts, Rewa Division Rewa, District Rewa dated 29.10.2021
and communication issued by the respondent No.5 Sankul Principal,
Government Pushpraj Boys Higher Secondary School, Govindgarh District
Rewa are hereby quashed and the petitioner is found eligible for the benefit of
FR 22-D.
11. The benefit of the same be extended to the petitioner within a period
of six months from the submission of the copy of this order, other wise the
respondents shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
12. With aforesaid, the present petition is allowed.
13. No order as to cost
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
R
