Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Singh Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30691
1 WP-40869-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40869 of 2025
AJAY SINGH RATHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prasanna R. Bhatnagar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - G.A for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging order dated 10.01.2025issued by
Respondent No. 3 rejecting claim of the petitioner for grant of benefit of 3rd
Kramonnati on the ground that the petitioner has forgo his promotion from
the post of Assistant Teacher to Teacher in the year 2014 which is in gross
violation of Circulars passed by the State Government from time to time.
2. Counsel for the respondent argued that the issue involved in the
present case that once the petitioner forgo the promotion whether the
petitioner is entitled for time pay scale has been answered by the Full Bench
vide the judgment passed in the case of Ramesh Temniya vs. State of M.P
reported in ILR 2025 MP 1912.
3. The issue of reference before the Full Bench is reproduced as
under:-
"1. Whether an employee who declined promotion, is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30691
2 WP-40869-2025
entitled to get benefit of kramonnati ?
2. Whether withdrawal of Kramonnati erroneously
granted without anything more and without attaching
any stigma and penal consequences amounts to
punishment ?
3. Whether such withdrawal of upgradation benefits hits
Article 311 of the Constitution of India ?
4. In para 31 & 32 the same is answered which is reproduced as
under:-
"31. Thus, to answer first issue in reference as to
'whether an employee who declined promotion, is
entitled to get benefit of kramonnati', the answer in
categorical terms is NO. Once an employee declines
regular promotion, he is not entitled to get benefit of
kramonnati.
32. As far as second issue as to 'whether withdrawal of
kramonnati erroneously granted without anything more
and without attaching any stigma and penal
consequences, amounts to punishment?' is concerned,
this is when clubbed to the third aspect of reference i.e.
'whether such withdrawal of upgradation benefits hits
Article 311 of the Constitution', it is appropriate to refer
Article 311 of the Constitution. Article 311 of the
Constitution deals with dismissal, removal or reduction
in rank. Thus, to attract the provisions of Article 311 of
the Constitution, it should be either a case of dismissal,
removal or reduction in rank. As far as dismissal and
removal are concerned, it does not call for any elaborate
discussion, as admittedly, withdrawal of kramonnati
does not amount to either dismissal or removal."
5. In the light of the answer by the Full Bench, this Court finds that
there is no illegality in the impugned order. The time scale pay schemes are
introduced on account of stagnation of promotion avenue of an employee.
Once promotion is made and the employee forgo the promotion, he is not
entitled for the time scale pay.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30691
3 WP-40869-2025
6. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that by Annexure P-12, an
employee who had forgo the promotion had been granted subsequent time
pay scale.
7. The aforesaid contention cannot be appreciated in light of the
reference answered by the Full Bench in the case of Ramesh Temniya
(supra) and thus, no negative equality can be claimed.
8. In view of the aforesaid, petition stands dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
