Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahaveer Prasad Jain vs The State Of M.P. on 12 May, 2017
WP-5487-2011
(MAHAVEER PRASAD JAIN Vs THE STATE OF M.P.)
12-05-2017
Shri Pawan Dwivedi, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri N.S. Kirar, Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
Petitioner; a retired employee, has served respondents on the post of Assistant Engineer and reached the age of superannuation on 31/10/2009. He has approached this Court in the year 2011 with the grievance that despite having impeccable service record and having been granted first and second Kramonnati, he has been denied benefit of third Kramonnati due to him upon completion of 28 years of service.
On notice, respondents have entered appearance and submitted that petitioner in fact has been granted the benefit of pay scale at the time of his promotion as Sub-Engineer on increased pay scale and thereafter he has been promoted as Assistant Engineer vide order dated 25/7/2007 and, therefore, is not entitled for third Kramonnati.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on completion of 10 years and 20 years of service petitioner has been extended the benefit of first and second Kramonnati. Petitioner is entitled for third Kramonnati for the reason that though petitioner is shown to have been promoted, but on the same pay scale i.e.8,000-13,500/-. As such, there is no increase in the pay scale. Hence, the benefit of length of service could not have been ignored in the matter of grant of Kramonnati. Moreover, persons junior to petitioner have been considered and extended the benefit. Petitioner also makes complaint of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Shri Kirar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents/State, supports the order impugned on the strength of counter affidavit and submits that petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed by him.
Heard.
Undisputedly, petitioner has been extended the benefit of first and second Kramonnati on completion of 10 years and 20 years of service. The question arises for consideration:-
"Whether the petitioner though has completed 28 years of service and promoted, but is not given the higher pay scale on promotion, shall still be entitled to claim third Kramonnati by virtue of completion of 28 yeas of service?"
This question has not been answered by respondents in the counter affidavit. There is no policy document to meet out such situation and to reach logical end to the problem posed by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to place on record all relevant documents before the competent authority for extension of the benefit of third Kramonnati upon completion of 28 years of service irrespective of the fact of promotion as Assistant Engineer ordered on 25/7/2007. On such representation made by petitioner, respondents' authorities shall bestow conscious consideration and take a decision thereupon in accordance with law bearing in mind the fact that juniors to the petitioner have been extended the benefit of third Kramonnati.
With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE Arun*