Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yagy Bhan Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2020
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1 WP-3929-2017
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-3929-2017
(YAGY BHAN PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
5
Jabalpur, Dated : 03-03-2020
Shri Sanjay Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sourabh Sunder, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2016 Annexure P- 1 whereby the benefit of Time Scale of Pay was given to the petitioner but benefit of Krammonati was not extended in his favour as per the judgment of this Court in W.P.(s) No.1070/2003 (K.L. Asre Vs. State of M.P.) and in W.A.No.966/2009 (State of M.P. and Ors. Vs. Teju Lal Yadav).
Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Division Bench of this Court has made it clear that contingency paid employees are also entitled to get 'Krammonati'. Thus, there is no justification in not extending the benefit of 'Krammonati' scheme in favour of petitioner, a Waterman.
Per contra, learned G.A. urged that no doubt that in the case of K.L. Asre and Tejulal (supra), the benefit of 'Krammonati' scheme were directed to be extended in favour of certain other employees but petitioners therein were not Waterman, indeed K.L. Asre was a Driver. Against one such judgment passed by this Court in favour of work-charge employees, SLP is pending before the Supreme Court.
No other point is pressed by counsel for the parties. A plain reading of Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.912/2015 (State of M.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Garg) shows that Division Bench considered the judgment of Tejulal Yadav and K.L. Asre and also certain order passed in S.L.P. The Division Bench opined that curtains on the issue are finally drawn by this Court in K.L. Asre (supra). In paragraph 17 of the judgment, the Division Bench gave a finding that Hon. Supreme Court approved the principles laid down in the case of K.L. Asre Digitally signed by MRS PREETI TIWARI Date: 04/03/2020 16:12:43 2 WP-3929-2017 and Tejulal Yadav (supra) by dismissing the SLP of the State Government. This issue is no more open for consideration.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the questions involved in the aforesaid case was whether the work-charge and contingency paid employees are entitled for the benefit of 'Krammonati'. Whether in the said establishment, the employee is working as Driver or Waterman makes no difference. Thus, the benefit of judgment in K.L. Asre (supra) cannot be confined to Drivers only. The basic purpose for grant of Krammonati is to provide financial upgradation to stagnating employees who have not earned any promotion within 12 and 24 years of service. If the petitioner is similarly situated in this respect merely because he is holding a different post, he cannot be deprived from the fruits of 'Krammonati' scheme.
In view of the foregoing analysis, the action of respondents in not extending the benefit of 'Krammonati' scheme in favour of the petitioner is disapproved. The respondents shall consider and extend the benefit of the judgment of K.L. Asre and Tejulal Yadav in favour of the petitioner.
Resultantly, they shall consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Krammonati and if he is found suitable, shall provide him Krammonati from due date with full arrears. For the purpose of grant of said benefit, Annexure P-1 will not come in the way of the petitioner.
The entire exercise shall be completed within 90 dates from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE P/ Digitally signed by MRS PREETI TIWARI Date: 04/03/2020 16:12:43