Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ku. Shivani Deb on 17 January, 2020
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav
1
Writ Appeal No.868/2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Appeal No.868/2018
(The State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Ku. Shivani Deb)
Jabalpur, Dated 17.01.2020
Shri A. Rajeshwar Rao, learned learned Government Advocate
for the appellant/State.
Shri R. K. Tripathi, learned counsel with Shri S. K.
Raghuwanshi, counsel for the respondent.
This Appeal under Section 2(1) of The Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 04.05.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.20837/2015.
The grievance raised by the petitioner (respondent herein) was against non grant Second Krammonati by order dated 23.09.2015. The order was in furtherance to the direction in Writ Petition No.6063/2014. The Second Krammonati was claimed on completion of 24 years of service and during said period, the petitioner was not promoted.
The relevant facts reveals that the petitioner was initially appointed on 18.07.1967 as Assistant Teacher. Thereafter, was given the benefit of First Krammonati (12 years) with effect from 01.01.1986. The petitioner vide order dated 22.01.1991 was promoted. However, as the petitioner forgo the promotion, it was cancelled by order dated 30.03.1991. Thereafter again by order dated 16.08.1994 2 Writ Appeal No.868/2018 the petitioner was given promotion, which she declined and did not join the promoted posts. For the third time the petitioner was promoted on 20.06.2006, which was declined by the petitioner.
As the petitioner had refused promotion, and the Krammonati was available to those who did not get any promotion, the Competent Authority vide order dated 23.09.2015 in furtherance to direction in W. P. No.6083/2014, declined to extend the benefit of Second Krammonati to the petitioner on the finding that-
"1- dq- f'kokuh nso dh çFke fu;qfDr 18-7-1967 lgk-f'k- ds in ij gqbZA 2- bUgsa çFke ØeksUufr ¼12 o"kZ½ dk ykHk fnukad 1-1-1986 dks fn;k x;kA 3- lgk;d f'k{kd ls mPp Js.kh f'k{kd ds in ij la;qDr lapkyd yksd f'k{k.k tcyiqj laHkkx tcyiqj ds i= Ø-@ vuqnku&2@fu;qfDr@84@707 tcyiqj fnukad 22-1-1991 }kjk inksUufr nh xbZA buds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k u djus ds dkj.k la;qDr lapkyd yksd f'k{k.k tcyiqj laHkkx tcyiqj ds i= Ø- @vuqnku&2 @fu;qfDr@84@3090 tcyiqj fnukad 30-3-91 }kjk budh inksUufr fujLr dh xbZA iqu% la;qDr lapkyd yksd f'k{k.k tcyiqj laHkkx tcyiqj ds i= Øa-
@vuqnku&2@fu;qfDr@94&95@7254 tcyiqj fnukad 16-8- 1994 }kjk inksUufr nh xbZA lfpo lsB uRFkwey tSu V~~LV d-m-ek- fo-xksj[kiqj tcyiqj ds i= Øa-@206 fnukad 30-8-94 vuqlkj bUgksaus inHkkj xzg.k ugha fd;kA iqu% lfpo lsB uRFkwey tSu V~~LV d-m-ek-fo- xksj[kiqj tcyiqj ds vkns'k Øa-@16 fnukad 20-6- 2006 }kjk budh inksUufr dh xbZ fdUrq buds }kjk inksUufr vkns'k ugha fy;k x;kA jftLVªh Mkd ls vkns'k Hkstk x;k ftl ij ysus ls badkj fyQkQs ij vafdr gSA bl çdkj rhu ckj inksUufr vkns'k tkjh fd;s x;s] fdUrq buds }kjk inksUur in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k ugha fd;k x;kA 3 Writ Appeal No.868/2018 vr% lkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx ds vkns'k Øa- ,Q 1&1@01@osvkç@99 fnukad 31-3-2001 rFkk 9-4-2001 esa fufgr funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj&ftu ik= deZpkfj;ksa us mPp inksa ij inksUufr ysus ls ;k inksUufr in ij tkus ls badkj fd;k gks ,sls deZpkjh dzeksUufr ;kstuk ds ik= ugha gSA"
Learned Single Judge placing reliance on the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Trilok Chand Gupta, 2010 (4) M.P.L.J. 266, allowed the claim of the petitioner for grant of Second Krammonati.
Careful reading of decision in Trilok Chand Gupta (supra) reveals that it was a case where the incumbent had foregone his promotion after the grant of Second Krammonati. This is evident from the decision in Trilok Chand Gupta (supra) wherein it is observed-
"6- We do not find any force in the submission for the reason that admittedly, the petitioner/respondent was given the higher pay scale vide 'Kramonnati' in the year 1991, whereas the said order of promotion which he declined was passed in the year 2002 and, thus, the benefit already accrued and given to the petitioner/respondent could not have been withdrawn on the ground that he refused to join at the transferred place in the year 2002 much after the grant of benefit of higher pay scale, on completion of 12 years of service. Therefore, in our view, the refusal to join at the transferred place on promotion would not have any impact or effect so far the grant of benefits of higher pay scale is concerned which was given on completion of required years of service. Besides, by the order placing the petitioner/respondent in a lower pay scale obviously visited with civil consequences and, therefore, before passing the said order, an opportunity of hearing or show cause against the reduction of his salary ought to have been given. Learned 4 Writ Appeal No.868/2018 Government Advocate could not point out from record that such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner/respondent before taking recourse of recovery. Therefore, the order being in violation of principle of natural justice cannot sustain."
Evidently, in Trilok Chand Gupta (supra) the issue was as to whether once the benefit of Krammonati having been extended on a due date a subsequent refusal of promotion will empower the Authority Concern to withdraw the benefit of Krammonati granted on earlier date. Whereas, in the case at hand, the issue was that the petitioner having given up her promotion thrice was entitled for benefit of Second Krammonati which was after the date of these promotions which were refused by her.
Learned Single Judge having glossed over this vital aspect, in our considered opinion, committed error in extending benefit of Second Krammonati to the petitioner, who had thrice refused to go on promotion which was prior in time then entitlement for said Krammonati.
Evidently, Clause 3.1 of the Circular No.73/79/84/ bZ-5/chl dated 03.03.1986 lays down the criteria for grant of Krammonati. It provides for-
"3-1 fdlh v'kkldh; lsod }kjk /kkfjr in ds fy, fu;e mPp osruekuksa esa ml v'kkldh; lsod dks ØeksUur fd;k tkuk fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ds v/;/khu jgsxk%& ¼d½ lacaf/kr v'kkldh; lsod dks inksUufr ds ekU; fl)kUrksa ,oa foHkkxh; fu;eksa ds vuqlkj inksUufr ds ;ksX; gksuk pkfg,A 5 Writ Appeal No.868/2018 ¼[k½ v'kkldh; lsod dks igyh ØeksUufr ikus dh ik=rk mlh n'kk esa gksxh tcfd mls iwoZ esa 12 o"kZ dh lsok iwjk dj ysus ij Hkh dksbZ inksUufr@ØeksUufr ugha çkIr gqbZ gSA mnkgj.k&,d fuEu Js.kh&fyfid 6 o"kZ ds lsokdky ds i'pkr~~ mPp Js.kh fyfid ds in ij inksUur gqvkA mls dafMdk 2- 1 esa of.kZr rkfydk ds LrEHk 1 ds ljy Øekad 5 osrueku 515&800 ds le{k LrEHk 4 esa crk;s osrueku 515&800 ds le{k LrEHk 4 esa crk;s osrueku :- 635&950 dk ykHk mlh fLFkfr esa ns; gksxk tcfd mPp Js.kh fyfid ds in ij 14 o"kZ lsokdky esa mls vkSj dksbZ inksUufr ugha feyh gksA ¼x½ nwljh ØeksUufr ikus dh ik=rk mlh n'kk esa gksxh tcfd iwoZ esa dsoy mUgsa ,d gh inksUufr@ØeksUufr çkIr gqbZ gks vkSj ,slh in inksUufr@ØeksUufr ds ckn ds vkB o"kkZsa dks feykdj mldh fujUrj lsok 20 o"kZ dh gks pqdh gksA ¼?k½ ,d ;k nks inksUufr fey tkus ij Hkh ;kstuk ds vUrxZr deZpkfj;ksa dks ØeksUufr dk ykHk gksxk ,oa ,dkadh in] tgkaA inksUufr ds dksbZ volj miyC/k ugha gSa] mu çdj.kksa esa Hkh deZpkfj;ksa dh bl ;kstuk ds vUrxZr ØeksUufr dh ik=rk gksxhA ¼M-½ dafMdk 2-1 esa of.kZr rkfydk ds dkye ¼2½ esa vuqØekad 1 ls 13 rd of.kZr fdlh osrueku esa in /kkj.k djus okys fdlh lsod dks mlds }kjk /kkfjr in ds fy;s fu;e fd;s x;s mPp osrueku esa tksus ds fy, mldh mi;qDrrk inksUufr lfefr }kjk tgk¡ fd ,slh lfefr dk çko/kku gks rFkk ,slh lfefr ds vHkko esa ml in ij fu;qfRrdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk vuqoh{k.k ¼Screening½ ds v/khu gksxkA"
Though the petitioner relying on Clause 3.1(?k) submits that the employees who have been granted one or two promotions are also entitled for the second krammonati. In our considered opinion the petitioner having thrice refused the promotion is not covered by Clause 3.1 (?k) as will entitle her for the second krammonati. 6 Writ Appeal No.868/2018
In view whereof, when the impugned order is tested on the anvil of above analysis it cannot be upheld.
Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed to the extent above. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) (ATUL SREEDHARAN)
JUDGE JUDGE
Loretta
Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ
Date: 2020.01.31 03:30:25 -08'00'