Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mangal Das More (D) Thr. Smt. Ramkali ... vs State Of M.P. on 6 November, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19257
1 WP-4773-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 4773 of 2010
MANGAL DAS MORE (D) THR. SMT. RAMKALI MORE
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjeev Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Sundaram, Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for following reliefs :-
"That, a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to make the payment of amount payable to the petitioner towards arrears of salary, petition and gratuity etc. As calculated vide calculation sheet Annexure P/1 consequent upon re-fixation of his salary as per the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules 2009 (sixth pay commission) along with interest."
Brief facts of the case are that husband of petitioner deceased Mangal Das was holding the post of Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department of State of M.P.. He has been retired on 31.5.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. In compliance of M.P. Revision of pay Rules, 2009(6 th Pay Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 11/8/2024 5:29:34 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19257 2 WP-4773-2010 Commission) w.e.f. 1.1.2006, respondent no.3 calculated the arrears of dues and salary pension and other retiral benefits of petitioner as per Annexure P-1 but such amount was not paid to the petitioner in spite of his repeated requests. Then, petitioner served notice upon respondents on 2.8.2010 through his counsel by registered AD post but despite service of notice respondents did not pay aforesaid amount to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this petition.
Counsel for petitioner placed reliance in the case of Kuldeep Singh Kushwah Vs. State of M.P. 2015(3) JLJ 71, in the case of Ram Siya Sharma Vs. State of M.P. 2013(1) M.P.H.T. 127 and in the case of Saroj Vs. State of M.P. 2013(4) MPLJ 309.
Per contra, respondents opposes the prayer by submitting in their reply that as per objection made by Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts a wrong pay fixation has been done by granting benefit of FR-22-D to the petitioner in higher pay scale, same has been corrected and accordingly right pay fixation vide (Annexure P-1) has been made in respect of petitioner. Petitioner was promoted in the year 2003 as Assistant Engineer and consequently thereupon, he was required to be paid according to FR-22-D. Thus, benefit cannot be granted to an employee by granting him benefit of additional increment under FR-22-D on the higher pay scale granted to the petitioner on completion of certain years in service. Wrong calculation was not approved by Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts. therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
Petitioner in his rejoinder contended that Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts have illegally taken frivolous objection against the said fixation made vide (Annexure P-1). After promotion of petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 24.9.2003, an order has been issued on 17.10.2003 and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 11/8/2024 5:29:34 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19257 3 WP-4773-2010 accordingly petitioner's basis pay was fixed at Rs.9925/- as on 10.10.2003. Pension of petitioner was revised. Therefore, it is duty of respondents to enter the same in service book of petitioner. Calculation was made according to existing salary of Rs. 10,475 per month. In compliance of direction issued by this Court in WP No.2671 of 2008, petitioner has to be granted benefit of FR-22-D and amount paid to him in excess consequent upon extending the said benefit of FR- 22- D be refunded back to him but after his promotion to the next higher post his pay has been reduced to Rs.8275/-.Therefore, action of respondents is illegal and arbitrary.
Respondents in their additional reply of rejoinder submits that respondents followed the said order and fixed the salary of petitioner as per rules. In compliance of order passed in WP No.2671/2008 dated 2.7.2008 matter was forwarded to District Treasury Officer/Joint Director for verification of fixation etc. but Joint Director held that as per circular dated 9.4.2007 of Finance Department, petitioner is not entitled for aforesaid benefits. They have not committed any illegality or irregularity. Therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard both the parties at length and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the Revision of Pay Rules were made in the year 2009. The Finance Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh has issued the circular dated 20th August, 2009, in which the manner of fixation of salary on account of revision of pay was categorically indicated. The tables were made and annexed with the aforesaid memo to indicate what would be the basic pay on the date of revision of pay in revised pay scale, which was made applicable with effect from 01.01.2006.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 11/8/2024 5:29:34 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19257 4 WP-4773-2010 It is also to be seen that the scheme was made for grant of Kramonnati on the recommendation of Chaudhary Pay Commission so back and in terms of said Kramonnati Scheme, the petitioner was given benefit of revision of pay scale for grant of Kramonnati.
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramsiya Sharma Vs. State of M.P., 2013(1) M.P.H.T. 127, it has held hereinunder :-
"The reasons for grant of Kramonnati and F.R. 22-D are different. It has no co-relation with each other. It is settled in law that benefit of Kramonnati or financial up-gradation is granted when employee is not getting promotion for a considerable long time/stipulated period. To avoid the stagnation, he is being granted financial up-gradation, which does not involve any change of nature of duties and responsibilities. In other words, upon grant of Kramonnati, the employee performs same nature of duties with same designation, but gets higher scale of pay, whereas F.R.22-D is given when employee is promoted from one post to another carrying same pay scale, but having greater responsibilities and duties."
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Saroj Vs. State of M.P., 2013(4) MPLJ 309 observed as under :-
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, merely because she was granted the benefit of Kramonnati w.e.f. 19-4-1999 or prior to the said date, it was not to be treated as regular promotion nor Kramonnatis in terms of Scheme made by State Government was to be granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the claim as made by the petitioner is wholly misconceived.
It is also noteworthy that Finance Department of State of M.P. has issued Circular No.F 1-5/2007/Niyam/4 dated 9.4.2007 to clarify the FR-22- D. As per circular dated 9.4.2007, petitioner has been promoted on the higher post, which is similar to the pay scale of lower post. Therefore, after Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 11/8/2024 5:29:34 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19257
5 WP-4773-2010 retirement, petitioner is not entitled for benefit of FR-22D(1) for his pay fixation.
Fundamental Rule-22-D specially provides that provision of this Rule shall not be applied where Government Servant is promoted or appointed to a higher post in the pay scale which is identical with scale of pay of lower post.
In the present matter, petitioner has been already promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer which carry pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- w.e.f. 10.10.2003, therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to extend the benefit of FR-22-D. In the instant matter, in compliance of circular dated 9.4.2007 respondents have passed pay fixation order of petitioner (Annexure P-4), therefore, petitioner is not entitled for other relief.
Accordingly, petition deserves to be and is dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 11/8/2024 5:29:34 AM