Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anudan Prapt Vidyalayeen Shikshak ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23561
1 WP-17474-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 25th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 17474 of 2024
ANUDAN PRAPT VIDYALAYEEN SHIKSHAK KARMCHARI SANGH
THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT B.S. YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prasanna R. Bhatnagar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain - Dy.GA for State.
ORDER
In the instant petition, the petitioner Association is challenging the
order rejecting the claim of the petitioners for the third time-bound pay scale.
It is argued that the matter is covered by the judgment in WP
No.1615/2023 decided by the co-ordinate bench at Jabalpur in the case of
S.P. Mishra Vs. State of MP & Ors. on 11.12.2024 .
Counsel for the State was granted time to examine the same. Though
counsel for the State opposed the prayer, however, he could not distinguish
the present case from the judgment passed in the case of S.P. Mishra
(supra). Counsel for State further submitted that the petition is filed by
Association and not by the individual petitioner and, therefore, the facts of
each petitioner may be different.
The relevant paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment in S.P. Mishra
(supra) is reproduced as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23561
2 WP-17474-2024
14. Thus, from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as well as this Court, it is apparently clear that
basic object of time bound promotion benefits is to
avoid stagnation as the cases of promotion could not
have been considered. It is just to provide a promotion
avenue to a particular category of employee. Even
otherwise in the case of Sharique A Ali (supra) the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has already held that benefit of
order dated 11.4.2002, by which, discontinuance of
benefit of senior scale / Kramonnati was made
applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2000, is applicable to those
employees who were appointed after cutoff date and not
to the employees who were appointed prior to 1.4.2000.
Admittedly, the petitioner is appointed in the
respondents department on 5.10.1987, therefore, such
amended Act cannot be made applicable against the
petitioner. Even otherwise, in terms of Regulation 73 of
the Board of Secondary Education (Madhya Pradesh)
Regulations, 1965, the scales of pay of the staff in
educational institutions which are in respect of
Government grant,shall not be less than those
sanctioned for the corresponding staff in Government
institutions.
15. For all the aforesaid reasons, the reasons assigned in
the impugned order are per se illegal, therefore, the
impugned order dated 11.11.2022 (Ann.P/7) is
unsustainable and it is hereby quashed. The respondents
authorities are directed to extend the benefit of Third
Kramonnati / Third Time Scale Pay to the petitioner on
completion of 30 years of service in the respondents'
department.
On examining the same, this Court finds that the matter is squarely
covered by the said judgment, and, therefore, the impugned order dated
3.5.2024, Annexure P/16 issued by respondent No.1 denying the claim.
Considering the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with
liberty to the members of the Association to file individual representations
along with the copy of the order passed in the case of S.P. Mishra (supra)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23561
3 WP-17474-2024
and the order passed today within 30 days from today and on filing such
representation the respondent No.1 shall consider and decide the
representation afresh taking into consideration the judgment passed in the
case of S.P. Mishra (supra) and if the claim of the petitioners are found to be
identical, the petitioners shall be extended the benefit of third
kramonati/third time scape pay on completion of 30 years of service in the
respondent department without being influenced by the impugned order
dated 3.5.2024 Annexure P/16. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out
within 60 days from the date of filing of the representation by passing a
reasoned and speaking order. The outcome of the representation shall be
communicated to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
