Madhya Pradesh High Court
Om Prakash Saxena vs State Of M.P. on 22 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23454
1 WP.No.4188 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
WRIT PETITION No. 4188 of 2007
OM PRAKASH SAXENA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri G.K.Agarwal- learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
Reserved on : 17.09.2025
Pronounced on : 22.09.2025
___________________________________________________________________
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):-
"(i) That, the order contained in Annexure P/1 and P/2 may kindly be
declared as illegal and the same may kindly be quashed.
(ii) That, P.P.O. contained in Annexure P/3 may kindly be directed to
be modified on the basis of petitioner's last pay as recorded in his
service book Rs.9100/-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23454
(iii) That, respondents may kindly be directed to recalculate the
amount of Gratuity payable to the petitioner and his pension may
also be directed to be re-fixed accordingly.
(iv) That, the amount recovered from the gratuity @ Rs.12300/- be
directed to be paid to the petitioner along with difference of gratuity
and arrears of pension re-fixed.
(v) That, petitioner may kindly be awarded the interest on his dues at
the market rates.
(vi) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case may also be given to the
petitioner along with costs of this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially
appointed as Block Extension Educator w.e.f. 29.11.1971 in the Health & Family
Welfare Department. Thereafter, petitioner was promoted as Deputy Media
Extension & Information Officer w.e.f. 6.4.1989. Subsequently, he was again
promoted as District Media Extension & Information Officer w.e.f. 18.8.2003
vide order dated 7.8.2003 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner was granted the Higher
Pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f. 19.4.1999 vide order dated 3.1.2004
(Annexure P/5). It is further submitted that in pursuance of the order dated
3.1.2004 (Annexure P/5), the pay of petitioner has been correctly fixed in his
service book. The petitioner had been drawing a basic pay of Rs. 7250/- in the
pay scale of 5500-175-9000 prior to getting the higher pay scale. Therefore, on
getting the higher pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500, the petitioner's pay was
fixed at Rs. 7300/- as per F.R. 22. Subsequently, adding the increments,
petitioner's pay was fixed to Rs. 8100/- as on 6.4.2003. Thereafter, the pay of
petitioner has been correctly fixed in his service book from the date of his
promotion to District Media Extension and Information Officer i.e. 18.8.2003 by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23454
granting him the benefit of F.R. 22-D and thus his pay was fixed as Rs. 8550/- on
18.8.2003. After adding his increments on 18.8.2004 and 18.8.2005, at the time
of retirement, petitioner's basic pay was Rs. 9100/- as recorded in the service
book.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that just prior to his
retirement, respondent no.3- Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Morena
issued an order dated 19.1.2006 (Annexure P/1) by which the order of Higher
Pay scale granted to the petitioner has been cancelled on the basis of some
objection taken by respondent no.4- District Treasury Officer, Treasury District
Morena. Thereafter, on 28.1.2006, respondent no.3 issued another order by which
the petitioner's pay was re-fixed retrospectively, and the fixation made in the
service book was amended, however, no entry of such re-fixation has been made
in the service book of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the orders dated
19.1.2006 (Annexure P/1) and 20.1.2006 (Annexure P/2) were issued without
giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, and no show-cause notice
was also served prior to passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that
by order dated 3.1.2004 (Annexure P/5), the benefit of Kramonnati was extended
to fourteen other persons but the benefit granted to the petitioner was cancelled
by respondent No.3, who had no authority to cancel the order of the higher
authority, as the order dated 3.1.2004 had been issued by respondent No.2-
Commissioner, Health, after considering the case of the Departmental Promotion
Committee. Thereafter, on the basis of the impugned order, pension payment
order dated 12.6.2006 was sanctioned by respondent No.4, by which the pension
was wrongly fixed and the gratuity payable to the petitioner was wrongly
calculated in the P.P.O. Recovery of Rs.12,300/- has also been made. The pension
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23454
has been calculated on the basis of showing the last pay as Rs. 8,825/-, whereas
his actual last pay was Rs. 9,100/- as correctly recorded in his service book. It is
further submitted that the Kramonnati order issued by the Commissioner, Health
has never been cancelled by the Competent Authority. It is further submitted that
in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/-, the petitioner had already been promoted
by order dated 7.8.2003 (Annexure P/4) from the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9,000/- to
the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/-. Since the benefit of promotion came after
much delay, the petitioner, along with his co-employees, was sanctioned the
Kramonnati pay scale on completion of 24 years of service w.e.f. 19.4.1999 by
order dated 3.1.2004 (Annexure P/5), i.e., after the petitioner had joined the
promotional post pursuant to Annexure P/4. The fixation of the petitioner was
done in the service book by incorporating the Kramonnati pay scale w.e.f.
19.4.1999 and thereafter fixing him in the promoted pay scale w.e.f. 18.8.2003,
i.e., the date on which the petitioner joined his promoted post. It is further
submitted that before coming into the Kramonnati Vetanman, the petitioner was
drawing a basic pay of Rs. 7,250/- in the pay scale of 5,500-9,000 and thus was
rightly fixed in the Kramonnati pay scale of 6,500-10,500/- at the stage of Rs.
7,300/-, and no F.R. 22-D benefit was given to him. The respondents are
incorrect in stating that the petitioner's pay was wrongly fixed by giving the
benefit of 22-D. It is further submitted that at the time of retirement, the
respondents were pressurizing the petitioner and the retiral dues had not been
settled; therefore, the petitioner submitted his consent/undertaking before the
respondent authority. The petitioner was forced to give the above-said
undertaking so that he might get his other dues settled expeditiously. Such an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23454
undertaking, forcefully obtained, cannot waive the statutory and legal rights of
the petitioner to challenge the illegal recovery made from his retirement dues.
It is further submitted that as per circular dated 19.4.1999, re-fixation was
required to be done only where a person is promoted to the same pay scale in
which he is placed after Kramonnati. But that is not the issue in the present case,
because the petitioner was already promoted, and the benefit of Kramonnati
relates to a lower pay scale than the promoted pay scale (i.e., promotion pay scale
8000-13,500/- and Kramonnati pay scale 6,500-10,500/-). It is further submitted
that by circular dated 18.8.2005, it was clarified that an anomaly had arisen in
certain cases of fixation from the Kramonnati pay scale to the promoted pay
scale. It was further clarified that if an employee suffers financial loss in pay
fixation in the promoted pay scale then his fixation should be done in a manner
not to cause any loss to him, and in such cases, the difference of pay may be
sanctioned as personal pay. It is further submitted that respondents No.3 and 4
have no jurisdiction to cancel the benefit of Kramonnati sanctioned by
respondent No.2, and no re-fixation or recovery can be made from the petitioner
at the time of his retirement.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner's pay
fixation, after grant of Kramonnati and promotion to the next higher post, was
wrongly done by giving the benefit of 22-D, as admitted in the petition, and that
on the basis of the objection of the District Treasury Officer, Morena, the correct
fixation of the petitioner's pay, calculated on the promotional post in the pay
scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/- together with the benefit of 22-D, deserves to be
maintained. It is further submitted that it is very clear from the Kramonnati
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23454
Scheme (Annexure R/1) that in case of grant of benefit of kramonnati and
thereafter promotion accorded to an employee, either benefit of FR 22-A(2) on
the kramonnati pay scale or 22-D on the previous pay scale treating as there had
been no kramonnati granted ever, which ever is beneficial to the employee will
be granted to him/her. The benefit of F.R. 22-D, wrongly extended to the
petitioner on the next promotion post on the basis of the Kramonnati pay scale,
has been modified by extending the benefit of F.R. 22-D in the pay scale of
5,500-9,000/- and, after grant of promotion to the next cadre in the pay scale of
Rs. 8,000-13,500/-, as per rules, from the date of joining the promotional post by
the petitioner, i.e., 18.8.2003. That mistake, which appeared in the pay fixation
order dated 9.7.2004 for the promoted post in the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/-
with effect from 18.8.2003, was corrected as per rules. Therefore, the benefit
mistakenly extended was withdrawn and the fixation of the petitioner's pay was
rightly done as per rules vide orders dated 19.1.2006 (Annexure P/1) and
20.1.2006 (Annexure P/2). It is further submitted that the petitioner had given an
undertaking on 27.1.2006, and the excess payment of salary of Rs. 12,300/- made
to the petitioner for the period from 18.8.2003 to 31.1.2006 was recovered on the
basis of the undertaking. The Office of Treasury, District Morena, was sent letters
dated 27.1.2006 (Annexure R/1) and 17.2.2006 (Annexure R/5), whereby it was
asked to deduct the excess amount of Rs. 12,300/- from the gratuity of the
petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the orders dated 19.1.2006 (Annexure P/1) and 20.1.2006
(Annexure P/2) were issued without giving any opportunity of being heard to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23454
petitioner and even no show-cause notice was issued prior to passing these
orders.
7. The benefit of Kramonnati was granted by the Commissioner, Health, after
considering the petitioner's case in the DPC, and the benefit was also granted to
14 other similarly situated persons. The Commissioner, Health, has never
cancelled the Kramonnati order dated 3.1.2004. There is specific pleading in para
5.6 of the petition that the benefit of Kramonnati was extended to 15 other
persons by order dated 3.1.2004 (Annexure P/5), and only the petitioner's benefit
was cancelled by the respondent. There is no reply to the aforesaid contention.
Vide order dated 3.1.2004 (Annexure P/5), the benefit of Kramonnati was
extended to fourteen other persons but the benefit granted to the petitioner was
cancelled by respondent No.3, who had no authority to cancel the order of the
higher authority, as the order dated 3.1.2004 had been issued by respondent No.2-
Commissioner, Health, after considering the case by the Departmental Promotion
Committee.
8. Vide order dated 3.1.2004 (Annexure P/5) issued by the Commissioner
Health/respondent No.2 on the basis of consideration made by Departmental
Promotion Committee, the benefit of Kramonnati was extended to fourteen other
persons but the benefit of Kramonnati given to petitioner was cancelled by
respondent No.3. Other 14 persons (similar situated person) are receiving the
benefit as per order dated 3.1.2004 (Annexure P/5).
9. The Kramonnati order issued by respondent No.2 - Commissioner, Health,
has never been cancelled by the Commissioner, Health/Competent
Authority/Higher Authority, and respondents No.3 and 4, being subordinate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23454
authorities, do not have the jurisdiction to cancel an order passed by a higher
authority. Accordingly, the order dated 09.01.2006 (Annexure P/1) is held to be
without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed.
10. By order dated 7.8.2003 (Annexure P/4) petitioner had already been
promoted from the post of Deputy Media Extension & Information Officer to
post of Media Extension and Information Officer (from the pay scale of Rs.5500-
9000/- to pay scale of Rs.8000-13500). The benefit of Kramonnati pay scale on
completion of 24 years of service was extended to the petitioner w.e.f.
19.04.1999 by order dated 03.01.2004 (Annexure P/5); therefore, the fixation of
the petitioner was carried out in the service book by incorporating the
Kramonnati pay scale w.e.f. 19.04.1999, and thereafter, salary was fixed in the
promoted pay scale w.e.f. 18.08.2003, i.e., the date on which he joined his
promoted post. Before coming into the Kramonnati Vetanman, the petitioner was
drawing a basic pay of Rs.7,250/- in the pay scale of Rs.5,500-9,000/-, and thus
was rightly fixed in the Kramonnati pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/- at the stage
of Rs.7,300/-, and the benefit of FR 22-D was not provided to him.
11. The petitioner was forced to give undertaking so that he might get his
retiral dues settled expeditiously; therefore, the undertaking dated 27.1.2006
(Annexure R/2) and undertaking dated February, 2006 (Annexure R/5)
forcefully obtained, cannot waive the statutory and legal rights of the petitioner
to challenge the illegal pay fixation and illegal recovery made from his
retirement dues.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23454
12 The Full Bench of this Court, in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v.
Jagdish Prasad Dubey, 2024 (2) MPLJ 198, has dealt with a similar issue
which is held as under:
(c) Question No.3 is answered by holding that the
undertaking given by the employee at the time of grant
of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay is a
forced undertaking and is therefore not enforceable in
the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Central Inland Water Transport
Corporation Limited (supra) unless the undertaking is
given voluntarily.
13. As per circular dated 19.4.1999, re-fixation was required to be done only
where a person is promoted to the same pay scale in which he is placed after
Kramonnati. But that is not the issue in the present case, because the petitioner
was already promoted, and the benefit of Kramonnati relates to a lower pay scale
than the promoted pay scale (i.e., promotion pay scale 8000-13,500/- and
Kramonnati pay scale 6,500-10,500/-). By circular dated 18.8.2005, it was
clarified that an anomaly had arisen in certain cases of fixation from the
Kramonnati pay scale to the promoted pay scale. It was further clarified that if an
employee suffers financial loss in pay fixation in the promoted pay scale then his
fixation should be done in a manner not to cause any loss to him, and in such
cases, the difference of pay may be sanctioned as personal pay.
14. As per circular dated 17.3.1999 or 19.4.1999 the re-fixation was required
to be done only where the person is promoted to the same pay scale in which he
is being placed after Kramonnati but it is not the issue in the present case because
petitioner is already promoted and the benefit of Kramonnati relates to a lower
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23454
pay scale than the promoted pay scale. Thus the contention of respondents in this
regard is against the facts of the case and is unsustainable.
15. The State of M.P., General Administration Department, issued a circular
dated 18.08.2005 (Annexure P/11) clarifying the Kramonnati scheme for Govt.
servant. It is stated in the said circular that the anomaly has been found to have
arisen in certain cases in fixation from Kramonnati pay scale to promoted pay
scale. It is clarified that if the employee is getting financial loss in pay fixation in
the promoted pay scale, then his fixation should be done in a manner not to cause
any loss to him and in such cases the difference of pay may be sanctioned as
personal pay to the employee.
16. The respondents have not denied the facts and ground mentioned in
rejoinder by filing additional reply/counter affidavit.
17. In the case of Asha Bajpai (Smt.) v. State of M.P. and others 2015 3
MPLJ 169 : 2015 2MPWN 75 the relevant para Nos. 6 and 10 of the said order
reads as under:
6. In view of aforesaid rival contentions, the basic question is
whether petitioner is entitled to get benefit of F.R. 22-D on the
scale of 1640-2900 or is entitled to get the said benefit on the
scale attached to the post of UDT (1540-2760). Ancillary
question based on Annexure R-2 is whether the decision of
State Government reproduced in Anenxure P-6 is justifiable,
which reads as under:-
**-------;fn dksbZ 'kkldh; lsod ftls foHkkxh; dzeksUufr ;kstuk
ds vUrxZr ofj"B izoj Js.kh osrueku esa osru ikus dh vuqefr
nh xbZ gS vius lkekU; osru dze esa fu;fer :i ls mPp in
ij lekuosrueku esa inksUur gksrk gSa rks ,sls inksUufr ij
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23454
mldk osru fu/kkZj.k fuEu in dh lkekU; osru Js.kh esa ;fn
og dk;Zjr jgrk vksj osru ikrk mlds vk/kkj ij ewy fu;e
22 Mh ds varxZr vFkok dzeksUur osrueku esa izkIr osru ds
lanHkZ esa ewy fu;e 22¼,½ ¼2½ ds varxZr blesa mls tks Hkh
vf/kd ykHk nk;d gks fd;k tkosxkA**
10. The matter may be viewed from another angle. FR 22-A (ii)
makes it clear that it is applicable to such appointments where
new post does not involve assumption of higher/greater
responsibility whereas FR 22-D (I) makes it clear that it is
applicable to a post which carries duties and responsibilities of
greater importance. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted
that the promotional post of Headmistress carries greater
responsibility qua the feeder post of UDT. Thus, petitioner's
case falls within the ambit of FR 22-D(i) and not under FR 22-
A(ii). Thus the formula devised by the respondents and
reproduced in para 6 of this order has no application. Once
the petitioner's case is not covered under FR 22-A (ii), the
question of comparing the benefits and granting one benefit
does not arise. Putting it differently, FR 22-D(i) begins with
non obstente clause. It has an overriding effect on other
provisions of Fundamental Rules. Thus, once FR 22-D (I)
becomes applicable, it automatically makes the other provision
inapplicable in this regard. Thus, the contention of department
and ground based on FR 22-A(ii) pales into insignificance. It is
noteworthy that when FR came into being, Kramonnati Yojna
was not applicable. Thus, intention of law makers was to give
benefit on the last pay scale enjoyed by the employee.
Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit under FR
22-D on the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900.
18. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders dated 19.1.2006
(Annexure P/1) and 28.1.2006 (Annexure P/2) is hereby quashed.
19. Consequently, the respondents are directed to revise/modify the PPO, GPO
and other retiral benefits on the basis of the petitioner's last pay of Rs.9,100/- and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23454
accordingly pay the arrears along with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f.
31.01.2006 till actual payment. The respondents are further directed to refund the
amount of Rs.12,300/- to the petitioner. The respondents shall also pay interest @
6% per annum on Rs.12,300/- w.e.f. 31.01.2006 till actual payment.
20. Let the said exercise as directed above be completed within a period of 90
days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
21. With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Ahmad
