[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal Das Koli vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:409
1 WP-15322-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 6th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 15322 of 2021
GOPAL DAS KOLI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Bandhu Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Nayak - Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated
11.07.2017 (Annexure P/3-A) whereby the benefit of time scale of pay
has been extended to him after coming into force of circular dated
21.09.2016. He has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to
grant him benefit of Krammonati pursuant to the policy dated
19.04.1999 on completion of 12/24 years of service.
2 . The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the
petitioner was appointed as Timekeeper in work charged and
contingency establishment in Public Works Department at Shivpuri vide
order, dated 26.09.1989. He has been working as such till date. It is the
claim of the petitioner that the State Government floated a policy vide
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:409
2 WP-15322-2021
Circular dated 19.04.1999 (Annexure P/6) thereby providing for
Krammonati benefit on completion of 12/24 years of service to the
Government employees. It is his submission that the said policy was
initially extended to the Drivers working in the work charged and
contingency establishment. However, pursuant to the order passed by
this Court in the case of K.L. Asre Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &
Ors (W.P. No.1070 of 2003) and followed in various cases including the
case of Teju Lal Yadav Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2009) MP
1326, the benefit of Kramonnati was extended to other employees in the
work charged and contingency establishment. He has thus prayed for
grant of benefit of Kramonnati to the petitioner on completion of 12/24
years of service.
3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
respondents have extended the benefit of time-scale of pay to the
employees working in the work charged and contingency establishment
vide circular dated 21.09.2016 (Annexure P/4). However, the said
benefit has been given with effect from the date of the said circular.
Learned counsel argued that under the policy of 1999, the petitioner was
entitled to get the benefit of Krammonati on completion of 12/24 years
of service from the date of his initial appointment.
4 . The learned counsel also pointed-out that earlier the petitioner
approached this Court by filing W.P. No.5569 of 2015. The writ petition
was disposed of vide order dated 27.08.2015 thereby directing the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:409
3 WP-15322-2021
petitioner to submit their representation and the respondents were
directed to examine the case in the light of judgment of K.L. Asre
(supra). When the order passed by this Court was not complied with, the
petitioner filed Conc. No.12 of 2016. In the contempt petition, the
respondents filed the compliance report whereby a copy of order dated
11.07.2017 was placed on record whereby the petitioner was extended
the benefit of time-scale of pay pursuant to circular dated 21.09.2016.
The contempt petition was accordingly disposed of vide order dated
14.09.2019 giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the action of the
respondents afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner has therefore,
filed the present writ petition.
5 . The respondents' counsel refuted the claim made by the
petitioner. He argued that the petitioner has already been extended the
benefit under the circular of 2016. He further submitted that the order
passed by this Court in the case of K.L. Asre as also in the case of Teju
Lal Yadav (supra) is under consideration before the Apex Court in SLP
No.10282 of 2016 and, therefore, the benefit of aforesaid judgments
cannot be given to the petitioner.
6. Considered the arguments and perused the records.
7 . The only stand taken by respondents for not extending the
benefit of judgment of this court in the case of K.L. Asre and Teju Lal
Yadav (supra) to the petitioner is the pendency of SLP No.10282 of
2016 before the Apex Court. It is seen that the said SLP has already been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:409
4 WP-15322-2021
disposed of by the Apex Court vide order, dated 21.03.2023 whereby the
order passed by the High Court has been upheld and the SLP has been
dismissed.
8 . It is not disputed by the parties that the issue involved in this
case is covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of K.L. Asre
& Teju Lal Yadav (supra). The only stand taken by the respondents in
their return is about pendency of the aforesaid SLP which has also been
disposed of now. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to get the
benefit of Kramonnati under the Circular dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999.
The petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to
extend the benefit of Kramonnati to the petitioner under the circular
dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999.
9. Let needful be done within a period of 90 days from the date of
submission of certified copy of this order.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
