Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raj Kumar Agarwal (Dead) Through ... vs Madhya Pradesh State Elecricity ... on 4 May, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 4 th OF MAY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 11065 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
1(A). KRISHNA KUMAR AGARWAL S/O LATE RAJ
KUMR AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
H.NO.1908 VIJAY NAGAR CHHAPAR RAMPUR
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
1(B). SMT. MADHUBALA AGARWAL D/O LATE
RAJKUMAR AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
H.NO.1908 VIJAY NAGAR CHHAPAR RAMPUR
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
1(C). YOGENDRA AGARWAL S/O LATE RAJKUMAR
AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, H.NO.1908
VIJAY NAGAR CHHAPAR RAMPUR JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
1(D). VISHAL AGARWAL S/O LATE RAJKUMAR
AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, H.NO.1908
VIJAY NAGAR CHHAPAR RAMPUR JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.N. PETHIA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MADHYA PRADESH STATE ELECRICITY BOARD
THROUGH SECRETARY SHAKTI
BHAWAN,RAMPUR,JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY
OCCUPATION: THR. SECRETARY SHAKTI
BHAWAN RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
SAN
PRADESH)
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.05.08 19:09:05 IST
3. CHIEF ENGINEER JABALPUR REGION M.P.S.E.B.
RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
4. JOINT DIRECTOR [AUDIT] M.P.S.E.B. RAMPUR
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed, being aggrieved by the decision of the
respondents in denying the petitioner benefit of higher pay scale on completion
of 9 years of service on the post of Assistant Grade-II.
2. Petitioner's contention is that he was appointed as Assistant Grade-III on
17.11.1969. In 1971, his services were terminated. Through intervention of
Labour and Industrial Courts, he was reinstated in the year 1975. On
04.03.1987, respondents came out with a circular reducing period of grant of
higher pay scale from 10 years to 9 and 20 years to 18 years. Petitioner was
promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-II in the year 1988.
3. In 1996, petitioner moved an application for grant of higher pay scale on
completion of 9 years of service on the post of Assistant Grade-II. This
application according to the respondents' counsel was rejected on the ground
that petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II,
in the year 1980 and he was not found fit for promotion and, therefore, suffered
supersession till 1988 when he was given promotion on the post of Assistant
Grade-II.
4. Placing reliance on circular dated 19.07.1996, Annx.P/10 and referring to
Signature Not Verified
Clause (vi), wherein, it is provided that period of supersession in promotion will
SAN
not be counted for the purposes of higher pay scale, it is submitted that
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.05.08 19:09:05 IST
petitioner was since superseded as Assistant Grade-III for promotion to the
post of Assistant Grade-II, therefore, his higher pay scale was deferred for the
period for which he suffered supersession.
5. It is further submitted that petitioner was granted this benefit with effect
from 2001 and, therefore, now petition is rendered infructuous.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record,
it is evident that Annx.P/10 deals with grant of higher pay scale on completion
of 9/18/25 years of service to Class-III and Class-IV employees. In Clause (iii)
(b), it is mentioned that in O.A.Grade-II, an O.A.Grade-II can opt for higher
pay scale of O.A. Grade-I on completion of 9 years in the existing post or 18
years of service as O.A.Grade-III and O.A. Grade-II put together with
minimum of five years of service in the existing post of O.A. Grade-II.
Thereafter, Clause (iv) is to be read in continuation to Clause (iv), Clause (v),
which are under the heading of II option. Thus, when Clause (iv) as read by
Shri Anoop Nair, is read, then the period of supersession in promotion will not
be counted for the purposes of higher pay scale when a case is considered for
II option.
7. In fact, order Annx.A/10, is provided in two parts, it deals with I st option
under Clause (i), (ii) & (iii) and, thereafter, there is a heading of II option under
which Clause (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) & (viii) onwards are to be read.
8. Thus, it is evident that for the Ist option, there is no provision for deducting
the period of supersession i.e. for grant of first higher pay scale on completion
of 9 years of service as O.A. Grade-II, higher pay scale could not have been
refused on the ground that petitioner was superseded in the matter of grant of
Signature Not Verified
SAN promotion as O.A. Grade-II from 1982 to 1998. In fact, law in this regard is
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.05.08 19:09:05 IST crystal clear. In case of Brij Mohan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1987
SC 948), wherein, in para 10, it is held that promotion will result in wiping up all
adverse inferences against the person and they cannot be taken into
consideration while considering the case of petitioner afresh for grant of higher
benefits.
9. When this judgment is taken into consideration and order dated
19.07.1996, is considered, then it is evident that for two reasons, a decision of
the authorities of the respondents for denying him upgradation without
considering his ACRs from 1988, till the date on which he became eligible for
higher pay scale in the year 1997, therefore, could not have been any denial of
upgradation.
10. Thus, petition deserves to be and is, hereby, allowed. It is directed that
respondents shall consider case of the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale of
O.A.Grade-I on completion of 9 years, on the post of O.A. Grade-II within a
period of 30 days and if found eligible on the touchstone of the ACR Gradings
of the intervening period i.e. 1988 to 1997, to extend the same, within a period
of sixty days from the date of passing of this order. Since petitioner is dead, all
monetary benefits will accrue in favour of his legal heirs.
11. In above terms, petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.05.08 19:09:05 IST
