Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Bharose Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29063
1 WP-100-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 13th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 100 of 2016
RAM BHAROSE SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):-
"(I) That, the impugned action where by amount of
Rs,20182:00/-, deducted from the petitioner may kindly
be quashed. And same kindly be directed to refund back
to the petitioner with the interest of 12% p.a.
(II) That, it may kindly be held that the benefit of
Kramonnati is rightly granted to the petitioner.
(III) That the petitioner may further be allowed to the
benefit of Kramonnati from the due date of 19-04-1999
and all consequential pension relief may be revised
accordingly.
(IV) That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble High
court may deem, fit with cost of the petition."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that controversy involved in
the present case has already been decided by order dated 16.10.2007 passed
in Writ Petition No.1291/2007 (s)[Manohar Lal Goyal Vs. State of M.P. and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29063
2 WP-100-2016
others]. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Manohar Lal Goyal (supra)
has held as under:-
"Petitioners by Shri Anil Sharma, Shri P.P. Johari, Shri Anil
Sharma, Shri Vishal Mishra, Shri Neeraj Shrivastava, Shri M.P.S.
Raghuvanshi, Shri H.D. Mishra, Shri Rajendra Sagoriya, Shri A.K.
Shrivastava, Shri S.K. Sharma, Shri Jitendra Sharma, Shri A.K.
Jain, Shri O.P. Saxena, Shri C.R. Roman, Shri D.P.Singh, Shri
G.M. Soni, Shri B.B. Shukla, Shri Prashant Sharma and Shri P.D.
Agarwal, Advocates.
Respondent/State by Shri Praveen Niwaskar, Deputy Govt.
Advocate.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this
bunch of writ petitions are heard finally at motion hearing stage.
This order shall govern the disposal of following writ petition
i.e. W.P.3899/2007 (S), W.P. No.4009/2006, W.P.No.865/2005,
W.P.No.2663/2006, W.P.No.6585/06, W.P.No.1580/2007,
W.P.No.2169/2005 (S), W.P.No.2552/2006 (S),
W.P.No.5493/2005, W.P.No.2033/06, W.P.No.6079/2006,
W.P.No.256/2007, W.P.No.1054/2007, W.P.No. 2639/2007,
W.P.No.1291/2007, W.P.No.481/2007, W.P.(S)No.514/2005,
W.P.No. 1291/2007 W.P.No.481/2007 W.P.(S)No.514/2005
W.P.No.1991/2005, W.P.No. 1375/2007, W.P.No.973/2007, W.P.
(S)No. 3257/2004, W.P.No. 1350/2005 (S), W.P.No.5998/2006,
W.P.No.990/2007, W.P.No.946/2007. W.P.No.4755/2005(S).
W.P.No. 338/2007, W.P.No.356/2007, W.P.No.1112/2007,
W.P.No.1127/2007, W.P.No.1128/2007 (S), W.P.No.2701/2007,
W.P.No.3580/2007, W.P.No.4622/2007(S),
W.P.No.1253/2005(S), W.P.(S) 1261/2005, W.P.No. 3980/2006
(S), W.P.No.5679/2006 (S), W.P.No.6475/2006 (S) and
W.P.No.3299/2007 (S).
In these writ petitions the petitioners who are working as
Teachers in the Education and Tribal Welfare Department
challenging the order dated 3.9.2005 passed by the respondent
no.1 vide Annexure P/1 by which the respondent no.1 took a
policy decision to extend the benefit of IInd Krammonati with
effect from 1.8.1993 instead of 19.4.1999.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29063
3 WP-100-2016
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in
terms of circular dated 17th March/19.4.1999 all other employees
of the State Government except the Teachers of the Education
Department all are enjoying the benefit of second krammonati
with effect from 19.4.1999 whereas in respect of the teachers of
the Education Department the State Government issued a circular
in the year 2005 for granting the said benefit with effect from
1.8.2003.
It is further submitted that this Court in number of cases
directed the respondents to grant the benefit of second krammonati
with effect from 19.4.1999 and in case, if any amount is already
recovered from the petitioners the same be refunded to them.
Copy of one of such order in which the other Bench of this Court
directed to decide the representation and grant the benefit to the
Asstt. Teacher is Annexure P/5, passed on 20.5.2005 in W.P. (S)
2696/04.
The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
are that the issue involved in these petitions are already decided by
the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) Smt.
Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne Vs. State of M.P. and others
and the learned Judge vide order dated 26.4.2007 has held that the
denial of benefit of second krammonati on completion of 24 years
of service and the cut off date 1.8.2003 fixed only for the teachers
is amounting to hostile discrimination with them while granting
the benefit of second kramonnati. Para 15, 16 and 17 of the order
dated 26.4.2007 is relevant which reads as under:
"15. Once the employees have been allowed the benefit
of first kramonnati on completion of 12 years of
service, if they have not been promoted or upgraded
then there is no reason to deny the benefit of second
kramonnati under the said scheme on completion of 24
years of service. However, cut of date 1.8.2003 fixed
only for teachers is amounting to hostile discrimination
with them while granting the benefit of second
Kramonnati. Learned Government Advocate has not
disputed that the cut of date for grant of benefit of
second Karmonnati is not applicable to other employees
of the Government except the teachers, in such
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29063
4 WP-100-2016
circumstances, it cannot be said that fixation of cut of
date 1.8.2003 only to the teachers is just or reasonable.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is to be held that
the cut of date i.e. 1.8.2003 fixed for teacher vide
circular dated 3.9.2005 is arbitrary, discriminatory and
violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India.
16. In view of the discussion as made hereinabove, it is
apparent that denial of benefit of second Kramonnati on
completion of 24 years of service and the cut of date
fixed by them is arbitrary and discriminatory, however,
consequential action of the Government to deny the said
benefit or to pass the orders of recovery or non-
settlement of post retiral and pensionary benefits is held
illegal.
17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The
petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second
Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions
mentioned in the circular dated 21.3.1983, 19.4.1999,
2.11.2001 and 3.9.2005. Accordingly, these petitions
are disposed of with the following directions:
(i) Clause -3 of policy dated 3.9.2005 fixing
the cut off dated 1.8.2003 to grant the benefit
of second Krammonati to the teachers is
arbitrary, discriminatory, hence quashed.
(ii) Teachers of Education Department or
Tribal Welfare Department are held entitled
to get the benefit of Kramonnati under the
policy dated 21.3.83, 19.4.99 and 2.11.2001
in accordance with the terms and conditions
as specified therein.
(iii) In view of the said directions, if the
orders of recovery passed by the Government
against petitioners are quashed, and if any
amount is recovered from them for said
reasons he refunded back to them within
three months, with interest at rate 6% per
annum. On failure to comply the said
directions within the aforesaid time, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29063
5 WP-100-2016
interest 9% per annum will be levyable.
(iv) In some of the cases, the benefit of
second Kramonnati has not been allowed to
the petitioners, however on due consideration
of their cases, the respondents are directed to
do the needful in accordance with the policy
dated 21.3.83, 19.4.99, 2.11.2001 and
3.9.2005 and settled their claim including
post retiral and pensionary benefits within the
period of 6 months from today and the
arrears thereof be released along with
permissible amount of interest under the
law."
From the aforesaid it is clear that clause 3 of the policy
dated 3.9.2005 fixing the cut off date for grant of
benefit with effect from 1.8.2003 was quashed and
directed that the teachers of education and Tribal
Welfare Department are entitled to get the benefit of
kramonnati under the policy dated 21.3.1983, 19.4.1999
and 2.11.2001 in accordance with the terms and
conditions as specified therein. All the recovery orders
issued by the State Government were also quashed and
learned Single Judge directed that if any amount is
recovered from them for the said reasons the same be
refunded back to them within three months along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum, failing which they
are liable to pay the penal interest at the rate of 9% per
annum. The issue involved in all these writ petitions are
squarely covered by the judgment dated 26.4.2007
passed in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) Smt. Prerna W/o Shri
Promod Koranne Vs. State of M.P. and others.
Consequentially all these writ petitions are allowed and
disposed of in terms of order dated 26.4.2007 passed in the case of
Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne Vs. State of M.P. and
others in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S), respondents are directed to grant
the benefit of second krammonati to the petitioners as per policy
dated 21 3 1983 19.4.1999 and 2.11.2001 in accordance with the
terms and conditions specified therein and if any recovery order
has been passed against any of the petitioners in the above
mentioned writ petitions the same are hereby quashed and if any
amount is recovered from them the same shall be refunded to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29063
6 WP-100-2016
concerned petitioners within a period of three months from the
date of filing of certified copy of this order with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum, failing which the respondents shall liable to pay
the penal interest at the rate of 9% per annum but without any
order as to costs. Copy of this order be placed in record of all the
aforesaid writ petitions."
3. Learned counsel for respondents fairly submitted that present
petition is identical and the controversy involved herein has already been
decided in Manohar Lal Goyal (supra) .
4. Considering the above, present petition is disposed of. The
directions contained in Manohar Lal Goyal (supra) shall apply mutatis
mutandis to the present case also with full force. As petitioner herein has
already retired, the respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits
including pay-fixation, revised PPO, GPO etc. to petitioner within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
pd
