Ravindra Kumar Dehariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 21768 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ravindra Kumar Dehariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2023

                                                              1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
                                              ON THE 19 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 3210 of 2018

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAVINDRA KUMAR DEHARIYA S/O SHRI RAMPRASAD
                           DEHARIYA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           TIME KEEPER O/O. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D.B/R.
                           SUB DIVISION NO. 2 SUB DIV. MEDICAL JABALPUR
                           DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI RAJESH PATEL - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PWD VALLABH BHAWAN,
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. SECRETARY
                                 FINANCE   DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN,
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    ENGINEER    IN  CHIEF     PUBLIC   WORKS
                                 DEPARTM ENT NIRMAN BHAWAN, 1ST FLOOR
                                 ARERA HILLS PLOT NO.27/28 BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           4.    EXECUTIVE   ENGINEER    PUBLIC     WORKS
                                 DEPARTMENT B/R, DVIISONA NO.2, CIVIL LINE
                                 JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY MS. ANKITA KHARE - ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2 . By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of necessary directions to the respondents to extend the benefit of Krammonati from initial date of appointment.

3 . The short facts of the case are that, petitioner was appointed on 2.11.1989 on the post of Timekeeper (work charged and contingency paid employee) in Public Works Department and thereafter the petitioner approached to this court by filing Writ Petition No.9125/2015 with a prayer to extend the benefit of Krammonati to the petitioner as he has not been promoted. The petition was decided on 1.8.2016 with a direction have been issued to the

respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No.4-Executive Engineer by order dated 2.6.2017 extended the benefit of time bound pay scale to the petitioner but the same was not granted by calculating the period from initial date of appointment. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for grant of first time bound pay scale after completing 12 years w.e.f. 2.1.2001 and second time bound pay scale thereafter w.e.f. 2.11.2009. However, the same has not been extended to him. The petitioner was denied the time bound pay scale from the date of initial appointment on the ground that the petitioner was originally appointed on the post of timekeeper (work charge and contingency paid employee) and, therefore, the same benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the matter of K.L. Asre vs. State of M.P. and another passed in W.P. No.1070/2003 decided on 7.11.2005, whereby the benefit of Time Bound Promotion Scheme was extended to the Work-charge Establishment employee also. The relevant paras are as under:-

"2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Time Keeper on 23.9.1964. He was declared permanent w.e.f. 22.9.1979 vide Annexure-P-3, which is a copy of the Service Book containing this fact. The further contention of learned counsel is that after having served for near about 40 years, the petitioner retired on 21.1.2004, but he was not at all promoted. However, the employees who are junior to the petitioner and who were serving in the same cadre were promoted. In this regard my attention has been drawn. to Annexures-P-9 to P-14 and Annexures-P-35 to P-38.

3. On the other hand, Shri Agnihotri, learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that since the petitioner was serving under the Work- charge Establishment and there is no provision to provide promotion to the employees serving under the Work-charge Establishment, therefore, the petitioner was not promoted.

4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed in part.

5. There is no merit in the contention of learned Govt. Advocate that the employees serving under the Work-charge Establishment, since there is no provision to give promotion to them, they are not entitled for any promotion. There is no merit in the contention of learned Govt. Advocate that employees serving under the Work-charge Establishment are also not entitled for promotion under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Time Bound Promotion Scheme is applicable to the employees serving under the Work-charge Establishment. On bare perusal of Annexure-P-7 it is gathered that the respondents are giving promotion under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme to the Drivers serving under Work-charge Establishment. When the promotion under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme is being given to the Drivers of the Work- charge Establishment, then why the petitioner should not be benefited in the same manner. The Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and others AIR 1988 SC 1033 in para 4 Has held as under:-

"4. Before we part with the appeal, we would like to take notice of another aspect. In course of hearing of the appeal, to a query made by us, learned counsel for the appellant Indicated the reason as to why the appellant was anxious to switch over the general cadre. He relied upon two or three communications which are a part of the record where it has been indicated that there is no promotional opportunity

available in the wireless organization. Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. We would, therefore direct the State of Bihar to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State Police in the wireless organization within six months from today by appropriate amendments of Rules. In case the State of Bihar fails to comply, with this direction, it should, within two months thereafter, give a fresh opportunity to personnel in the Police wireless organization to exercise option to revert to the general cadre and that benefit should be extended to everyone in the wireless organization".

The same principle has been reiterated in the case of Dr. Ms.O.Z.Hussain v. Union of India and others AIR 1990 SC 311. This Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Devi Tiwari v. The State of M.P. and another (W.P.No.9368/2003) decided on 5.1.2005 has held that according to the decision of Raghunath Prasad Singh (supra) the employees are entitled for promotion and the respondents were directed to extend the said benefit in terms of the decision of Supreme Court in Raghunath Prasad Singh (supra).

6. Since the Time Bound Promotion Scheme is applicable to the Drivers serving under the Work-charge Establishment, the view of this Court is that the same is also applicable to the petitioner who was serving on the post of Time Keeper and was retired from the said post.

7. Eventually, this petition succeeds in part and the respondents are hereby directed to extend the benefit of Time Bound Promotion Scheme to the petitioner and monetary benefits be paid to him on or before 31.3.2006. It is made clear that if necessary orders in that regard are not issued by the respondents and monetary benefits are not paid to the petitioner on or before 31.3.2006, he shall be entitled to the interest 6% per annum on the said amount w.e.f. 1.4.2006."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the matter of State of M.P. vs. Dalluram Vishwakarma passed in Writ Appeal No.883/2014 decided on 4.5.2016 and judgment passed by the coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.16274/2018 in the

matter of Jagdish Chandra vs. School Education Department, decided on 24.7.2018.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for issuance of necessary direction to extend the benefit of Krammonati w.e.f. initial date of appointment i.e. 2.11.1989.

7 . Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer submits that the petitioner was appointed as contingency paid employee and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the parity with the regular employee. She further submits that as per the policy, benefit of krammonati is to be given to regular government employee twice i.e. on completion of 12 years and 20 years of service, from the date when they were regularized in the government service. Learned Panel Lawyer further submits that there is no Circular of GAD or State Government to extend the benefit of krammonati. She prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. The point in dispute in the present case is squarely covered by the order passed by the coordinate Bench in the matter of K.L. Asre (supra). The said order was challenged by the State of M.P. in Writ Appeal and thereafter in S.L.P. and that order attained finality. As per the order passed in the matter of K.L. Asre (supra), the Time Bound Promotion Scheme is applicable to the Work-charge Establishment also and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of the Time Bound Promotion Scheme. In the said case also, the petitioner was also served on the post of timekeeper.

10. In view of above, the petitioner is found entitled for the benefit of Time Bound Promotion Scheme and the same will be payable to the petitioner as it is applicable to the other regular employees of the State Government.

Respondents are directed to extend the monetary benefits to the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above with no order as to costs.

(VINAY SARAF) JUDGE irf.