Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Thorat vs Mp Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. on 8 January, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma
1 W.A. No.758/2022
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT
GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
WRIT APPEAL NO.758/2022
Sanjay Thorat
Vs.
Madhya Pradesh Urja Vikas Nigam Limited
Shri N.K. Gupta - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Rashi
Kushwaha - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri K.N. Gupta - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Rinku
Shakya - Advocate for the respondent.
Judgment
(Delivered on 08th day of January, 2025)
1. The instant writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uccha Nayayaly (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is filed
against the order dated 06-04-2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.154/2017 whereby writ petition preferred by the
petitioner was dismissed.
2. Facts of the case in short are that petitioner/ appellant is the
employee of respondent/ department and working on the post of Assistant
Engineer. Appellant joined the service in the respondent/ department on
21-03-1988 and since date of joining no promotion was granted to the
appellant and 2nd Krammonati was granted by the respondent vide order
dated 05-04-2010 but 1st Krammonati was never granted the appellant,
hence, appellant (as petitioner) preferred writ petition No.5905/2015
which was disposed of vide order dated 03-09-2015 with the direction to
the respondent to decide the representation of the appellant/ petitioner. In
compliance of the Court's order, respondent passed an order on 30-09-
2016 and granted 1st Krammonati w.e.f. 01-04-2007. Petitioner again
approached this Court in W.P. No.154/2017.
3. It was the submission of learned counsel for the appellant (as
petitioner) that as per the policy of the State Government which was
adopted by the Nigam, if an employee worked on a particular post for
more than eight years without any promotion, then he is entitled for grant
of 1st Krammonati. In the present case, appellant was appointed in the
year 1988 but benefit of 1st Krammonati was granted to the appellant
w.e.f. 01-04-2007. Since appellant was working with the respondent/
department on the post of Assistant Manager since March, 1988 therefore,
he is entitled for grant of 1 st Krammonati after completion of 10 years of
his services (as per relevant rules) but he was granted 1 st Krammonati
w.e.f. 01-04-2007 which was wrong and would affect the service career,
pension and other service related benefits of the appellant.
4. Respondent filed return and denied the contention of the appellant
with the submission that as per policy of the State Government which
governed the field in the year 1998 provided that out of eight years ACRs,
first five ACRs should have been of Category "A" and rest three years
ACRs should not have been below the Category "B". Since the ACR's for
the year 1995-1996 & 1996-1997 were not available, therefore, ACR for
the previous years was taken into consideration and only in the year 2007
the criterion of five "A" ACR's and three "B" ACR's got fulfilled and
accordingly benefit of 1st Krammonati was granted to the appellant w.e.f.
01-04-2007, which cannot said to be erroneous.
5. The learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition after considering
the rival submissions advanced and the settled legal position of law with
regard to grant of Krammonati that the said benefit ought not to be
granted automatically on completion of requisite years of service. Policy/
Scheme of the State Government contemplates that claim for grant of
such Krammonnati shall be considered after screening of the service
record and thereafter, assessment is to be made as to whether an
incumbent/employee is fit for grant of krammonati or not. Being
aggrieved by the same, Writ appeal is preferred by the appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Writ
Court has not considered clause 12 of the circular dated 24-01-2008 in
which it has been mentioned that there is no need for assessment of the
ACR's with regard to grant of 1st and 2nd Krammonati. It is further
submitted that in the service record, there is no negative/ adverse remarks
against the appellant on the basis of which, appellant was denied the
benefit of 1st Krammonati. Non-availability of the ACR's cannot be a
ground for refusal to grant 1st krammonati to the appellant because ACR's
were written by the competent authority and if the same were not
available with the department, then appellant cannot be penalized for the
same. On the basis of aforesaid grounds, the order of the Writ Court
suffers from illegality and perversity, hence, deserves dismissal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer with the
submission that the learned Writ Court after considering the relevant
policy, return filed by the respondent/ State and submissions advanced
passed the impugned order and the same needs no interference.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. This is a case where appellant is seeking benefit of 1st Krammonati
after completion of 10 years of his services (appellant joined the service
in the year 1988) but he was granted the said benefit w.e.f. 01.04.2007
whereas the same should have been granted to the appellant in the year
1998. It is settled law with regard to grant of Krammonati that it should
not be given automatically on completion of requisite years of service
whereas the benefit of 1st or 2nd krammonati should be given after
screening the service record of the employee/ incumbent and looking to
the fact whether that employee/ incumbent is fit for such benefit or not.
10. That apart, from perusal of Clause 12 of the circular dated 24-01-
2008, it appears that the said clause contemplates a situation where if an
employee is granted 1st or 2nd Krammonati as per earlier G.A.D. Circular,
then again his ACRs would not be scrutinized under the circular dated
dated 24-01-2008, issued by the Finance Department. Perusal of record
reflects that on 29-03-2008, the committee scrutinized the case of the
appellant for grant of 1st krammonati but since there was a disciplinary
proceedings pending against the appellant, therefore, his case was not
considered and after exonerating him from the charges levelled against
him, vide order dated 13-04-2010 (passed in W.P. No.3472/2009), case of
appellant was considered for grant of 2nd Krammonnati on an application
made by the appellant. The Scrutiny Committee earlier found the
appellant fit for grant of 1st Krammonnati and granted the same w.e.f. 01-
04-2007.
11. The Writ Court has considered all the factual aspects in detail and
thereafter passed the order dismissing the writ petition filed by the
appellant as petitioner. The Writ Court has also dealt with the relevant
policy in correct perspective. No illegality or arbitrariness is found in the
impugned order.
12. The order dated 06-04-2022 passed in Writ Petition No.154/2017
by the learned Writ Court stands affirmed and the writ appeal is hereby
dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vc
