Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balram Katare vs Secretary The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2012
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
W.P. No. 12489/2009 (S)
Balram Katare and others
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
Present : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha.
For the petitioners : Shri Shakti Prakash Pandey, Adv.
For the respondents : Shri S.K. Shrivastava, P.L..
ORDER
(05.01.2012) The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 17/18.02.2009 by which the representation of the petitioners claiming second Krammonati in accordance with the circular of the State Government dated 19.04.99 has been considered and rejected pursuant to the directions issued by this court in W.P. No. 7945/08(S).
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioners were initially appointed as Laboratory Assistants in the pay scale of Rs.169-300 by order dated 23.08.1974 w.e.f. 01.08.1973. Subsequently, by order dated 6/25.08.1986 the State Government re- designated the post of Laboratory Assistants as Laboratory Technician and upgraded the scale from Rs.
2169-300 to Rs.205-375 and fixed them in the corresponding scale in the Choudhary Pay Commission of Rs.335-950. The State Government vide Circular dated 19.4.1991 introduced the policy of giving Krammonati to the persons who were working on the same post and scale for a long period of time and it was laid down therein that the persons having completed 12 years on the same post and scale, would be given one upgradation and if they continue on the same post for another 12 years they would get a second upgradation. Consequently, as the petitioners had worked on the post of lab technician for more than 12 years, the respondents vide order dated 26.10.2002 granted the first Krammonati to the petitioners and others and fixed them in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2340/-, pursuant to the order passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 150/00 decided on 29.01.00 wherein it was held that the laboratory technicians were also entitled to first krammonati on completion of 12 years of regular services.
3. As the respondents/authorities did not award the second Krammonati to the petitioners, they had filed W.P. No. 7945/08(S) before this court which was disposed of vide order dated 25.07.2008 with a direction to the respondents/authorities to consider and decide the petitioners' representation in that respect.
4. Pursuant to the order passed by this court, the respondents/authorities by the impugned order dated 17-18.02.2009, rejected the representation of the petitioner claiming the second Krammonati on the ground that the petitioners were initially granted first upgradation 3 in the year 1983 from the pay scale of Rs.169-300/- to Rs.205-375/- and were thereafter granted second Krammonati in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2340 on completing 15 years of their services and therefore, as the petitioners have already been granted two upgradations in the pay scale, they are not entitled to any further Krammonati in accordance with the paragraph 2(A) of the Circular 17.04.1999.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no. 5 Bhola Prasad Gupta who was also appointed on the post of laboratory assistant along with the petitioners vide order dated 23.08.1974 (Annexure P/4) has been granted the second Krammonati under the same policy and is drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- vide order dated 13th of October, 2003 (Annexure P/2), while the petitioners who were similarly situated, have been denied the same benefit and therefore, the act of the respondents/authorities is discriminatory and in violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
6. It is further submitted that the State Government had infact re-designated the laboratory assistants as Laboratory Technicians and fixed them in the pay scale of Rs.205-375 by order dated 6-25.08.1986 which was not and cannot be termed to be an upgradation in the pay scale or salary and this fact had been clarified by the Additional Director, Higher Education by his order dated 26.5.86 Annexure P/7 and in such circumstances, the rejection of the petitioners' representation by treating the 4 aforesaid re-designation as upgradation is patently illegal and erroneous and is in ignorance of the order passed by the Additional Director, Higher Education Annexure P/7 and is also in ignorance of the fact that the respondent no. 5 and others who were also re-designated as Laboratory Assistants along with the petitioners, have been granted benefits while the petitioners have been denied the same.
7. The respondents have filed their return opposing the petition filed by the petitioners and have stated that the petitioners were granted upgraded pay scale of Rs.335-590/- by order dated 13.02.1983 and were thereafter granted another upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2340/- after completing 15 years of services and in such circumstances, they are not entitled to any further upgradation in view of the Clause 2 (B) of the circular dated 17.04.1999 and in such circumstances, no fault can be found in the impugned order.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
9. From a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioners along with the petition it is clear that the petitioners were appointed as Laboratory Assistants in the pay scale of Rs.169-300 but subsequently, this post was re-designated as Laboratory Technician and was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.205-335 and was correspondingly fixed in the pay scale of Rs.635-950/- under the Choudhary Pay Commission. It is also clear from a perusal of the documents Annexure P/7 dated 26.05.2008 that the Additional Director, Higher Education has clearly 5 specified and clarified that this re-designation and fixation in the pay scale of Rs.335-950 does not amount to upgradation and cases of Krammonati be decided keeping the aforesaid aspect in mind but the respondents/ authorities while considering and rejecting the petitioners' representation by the impugned order dated 17/18.02.2009 have not taken into consideration the aforesaid fact.
10. A perusal of the return makes it clear that the respondents have not clarified this aspect in the return nor have they made any submission in respect of the order passed by the Additional Director, Higher Education dated 26.05.2008 Annexure P/7.
11. It is also undisputed that the respondent no. 5 appointed along with the petitioners vide order dated 23.08.1974, has been granted second Krammonati vide order dated 13.10.2003 Annexure P/2 and is enjoying the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- and that the respondents in their return have not given any reason as to how and in what manner the case of the respondent no. 5 is different from that of the petitioners. That apart, it is also clear from a perusal of Annexure P/6 dated 26.10.2002 filed by the petitioners along with the petition that the petitioners were granted first Krammonati on completion of 12 years of service in the pay scale of Rs.1420-2340 in view of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 150/00 and therefore, the aforesaid order passed by the respondents themselves makes it clear that the first Krammonati was granted to the petitioners by order dated 26.12.2002 in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2340 but the 6 respondents/authorities while rejecting the petitioners' representation has treated the aforesaid grant of first krammonati to the petitioners on completion of 12 years of services as second Krammonati totally ignoring the stipulations in the aforesaid order.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 17/18.02.2009 passed by the respondents/authorities deserves to be and is hereby quashed as it suffers from non-application of mind as the authorities while rejecting the representation of the petitioners have not taken into consideration and ignored the contention of the petitioners regarding respondent no. 5 and the direction issued by the Additional Director, Higher Education dated 26.5.2008 and the clear stipulations in the order granting first krammonati dated 26.10.2008.
13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents/authorities to grant the petitioners similar benefits of Krammonati as granted to the respondent no. 5 with all consequential benefits.
14. The aforesaid exercise be completed by the respondents within a period of five months from the date of the order passed today.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S. Jha) Judge msp 7