Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahadeo Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1 WP-5078-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5078 of 2021
MAHADEO SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri K.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
(i) To quash the impugned order dated 18/01/2021 (Annex.P1/)
passed by respondent No.1 directed to authority to grant benefits
of FR 22-D in the interest of justice.
(ii) Grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble High Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially
appointed as UDT on 28/01/1987 and subsequently got the higher pay
scale/kramonnati on 28/01/1999 upon completing 12 years of service and the
pay scale was equivalent to the pay scale of Headmaster. Thereafter, he was
substantively promoted as Headmaster on 04/08/2007 and sought benefit of
FR 22-D. The said claim has been rejected by the respondents on the ground
that since he is getting higher pay scale of Headmaster by way of kramonnati
which is more beneficial to the employee, therefore, he would not get the
benefit of one annual increment as per FR 22-D upon being promoted as
Headmaster.
2 WP-5078-2021
3. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra and the matter has been
conclusively decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram
Siya Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in (2013) 1 MPLJ 51 ,
wherein the Coordinate Bench has held as under:
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are as
under:-
The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Upper Division
Teacher. The petition was promoted as Head Master middle school
by order dated 30-6-2005. As an Upper Division Teacher, the
petitioner was getting Kramonnati scale of Rs. 5500-9000. The
pay scale on promotion as Head Master was also same i.e. 5500-
9000. The post of Head Master involves duties of higher
responsibilities. On completion of age of superannuation, the
petitioner retired on 31-7-2009. At the time of retirement, an
objection was raised that petitioner was promoted in the same pay
scale, and therefore, F.R. 22-D is not applicable. Consequently, by
taking away the said benefit, it is held that recovery be made.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying the judgment
of this Court reported in 2004(3) MPLJ 397, R.S.
Sikarwar v. State of M.P., submits that this matter is squarely
covered by the said judgment.
4. Per contra, Shri Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the State,
submits that petitioner has already enjoyed the benefits of
Kramonnati scale, and therefore, no further benefits under F.R. 22-
D are permissible. It is stated that objection was raised by Joint
Director, Treasury and Accounts, Chambal Division, and
therefore, department has taken the action.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. The reasons for grant of Kramonnati and F.R. 22-D are
different. It has no correlation with each other. It is settled in law
that benefit of Kramonnati or financial upgradation is granted
when employee is not getting promotion for a considerable long
time/stipulated period. To avoid the stagnation, he is being granted
financial upgradation which does not involve any change of nature
of duties and responsibilities. In other words, upon grant of
Kramonnati, 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
3 WP-5078-2021
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 upgradation 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.
4. The present case is also on similar footing and no distinguishing
feature could be pointed out by the counsel for the State from the aforesaid
case.
5. Resultantly, the impugned rejection order Annex.P/1 is set aside.
6. The respondents are directed to restore the benefit of FR 22-D to the
petitioner from his due date with all consequential benefits. Recovery if any
made, is also set aside.
7. Let the needful be done within two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
8. The petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
RS
