Roop Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 8938 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Roop Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2025

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20856




                                                             1                              WP-2708-2023
                             IN        THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                           BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
                                                ON THE 8 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 2708 of 2023
                                                   ROOP SINGH TOMAR
                                                         Versus
                                       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                  Shri D.P. Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Smt. Monika Mishra- Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

                                                                 ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure-P/1), whereby he has been denied the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman on completion of 12/24 years of service as per policy dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed vide order dated 10.07.1993 on the post of Adhyapak on a fixed pay of Rs.500/-. He was terminated from service vide order dated

17.03.1994. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged order of termination before the erstwhile M.P. State Administration Tribunal Indore in O.A. No.285/1994. Upon dissolution of the Tribunal, the aforesaid case stood transferred to this Court and was registered as W.P. No.4195/2003. This Court vide order dated 13.12.2004 (Annexure-P/4) allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service with 50%

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20856

2 WP-2708-2023 back wages. When the petitioner was not re-instated in service, he was compelled to file the Contempt Petition No.427/2008 complaining non- compliance of the Court order. This Court was pleased to disposed off the contempt petition vide order dated 13/08/2008 thereby extending the time to comply with the order for a period of three months. Again, when the order was not complied with, the petitioner filed second Contempt Petition No.705/2015. During the pendency of that contempt petition, respondents complied with the order and re-instated the petitioner in service. Accordingly the contempt petition was disposed off. Resultantly, the petitioner was re- instated in service and was paid 50% of back wages in December' 2016.

3. The petitioner, thereafter, raised a claim with regard to grant of benefit of first and second Kramonnat Vetanman on completion of 12/24

years of service as per policy framed by the State Government dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999. When nothing was done, he approached this Court by filing W.P. No.21848/2019 which was disposed off directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for grant of aforesaid benefit in view of judgment passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna Koranne W/o Shri Pramod Koranne Vs. State of M.P. & others in W.P. No.6773/2006. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the impugned order has been passed on 14.07.2022, whereby the benefit has been denied to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the impugned order, submitted that reasons assigned by the respondents for denying the benefit to the petitioner is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Referring

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20856

3 WP-2708-2023 to paragraph 6 of the impugned order, learned counsel submitted that the benefit has been denied to the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner has been paid 50% of the salary for the period from 23.03.1994 to 31.05.2017. It is his submission that aforesaid reasons assigned by the respondents is not relevant for purposes of grant of Kramonnati benefit inasmuch as only 12/24 years of service is required to be seen while granting the benefit. He, therefore, prays for setting-aside of the impugned order and grant of benefit of Kramonnat Vetanman.

5. On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State supported the impugned order and submitted that since the petitioner has been paid only 50% of the salary for the period from 23.03.1994 to 31.05.2017, he is not entitled for the benefit under the policy. It is her submission that since the petitioner was not getting 100% salary, it cannot be said that the petitioner's services were outstanding and he is entitled for promotion. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Considered the arguments and perused the record.

7. Admittedly the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 17.03.21994. The petition challenging the termination order remained pending before this Court till 13.12.2004 this Court set-aside the impugned order holding that the action of the respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was directed to be re-instate in service with 50% back wages. Meaning thereby continuity of service was also granted to the petitioner. The policy issued by the State Government for

grant of Kramonnat Vetanman on completion of 12/24 years of service vide

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20856

4 WP-2708-2023 circular dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999 (Annexure-P/10). The employees were eligible for consideration for Kramonnat Vetanman under the said policy on completion of 12/24 years of service. Since the petitioner has been granted benefit of continuity of service also, he would be entitled to count his service with effect from his initially date of appointment i.e. 30.07.1993.

8. The reason assigned by the respondents for denying the benefit of Kramonnat Vetanman to the petitioner that he was paid 50% of the salary, is unsustainable inasmuch as grant of 50% of salary was pursuant to direction of this Court. It is settled legal position that direction to pay back wages may vary from 0% to 100% depending upon facts of the case. However, what is relevant for purposes of grant of Krmonnati is the length of service and not the salary paid to the employee. The respondents have held the petitioner's case different from the case of Smt. Prerna only on the ground that he is paid 50% salary for the period from 23.03.1994 to 31.05.2017. In the considered opinion of this Court, the direction of this Court to pay 50% salary was not issued after appreciating the petitioner's performance. Therefore, merely because the petitioner was paid 50% salary, would not be a ground for denying him benefit of Kramonnat Vetanman as per the aforesaid policy. The respondents ought to have considered the petitioner's case for grant of benefit of kramonnati under the policy in accordance with the requirements of the said policy.

9. Considering the aforesaid the impugned order dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure- P/1) is set-aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the petitioner case for grant of benefit under the policy dated

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20856

5 WP-2708-2023 17.03.1999/19.04.1999 and grant him benefit if he is found eligible for the same as per the requirements of policy. Let necessary exercise in this regard be done within a period of 90 days' from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order.

10. With the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed off.

(ASHISH SHROTI) JUDGE

rahul