Madhya Pradesh High Court
Khemchand Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 November, 2016
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH,
JABAPLUR
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar,J
WRIT PETITION NO.9056 OF 2011
Khemchand Vishwakarma.
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Vikash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/
State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on the 22nd day of November, 2016) By way of instant writ petition the petitioner is challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents to give him promotion, time scale and other monetary benefits, whereas he has already retired from the post of Assistant Grade-I after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2011 from the office of Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hoshangabad.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk and Typist in the year 1972 and in the year 1986, on 19.11.1986 he was promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-II where he remained till 02.05.2008 and from 03.05.2008 he served as Assistant Grade-I but he was neither granted time-scale nor was promoted between that period. Although during this period the candidates, who were juniors to him were promoted to the higher post.. The petitioner had also submitted various representations in this behalf, but the same remained unattained and finally the petitioner retired from the service on 31.3.2011.
3. In the return filed by the respondents, it is contended that the petitioner has already been granted the Kramonnati Scale with effect from 19.4.1999 vide order dated 30.8.2000. It is further submitted by the respondents that the benefit of time scale after completing 10 or 20 years of service came into existence with effect from 1.1.2006 and since the petitioner has already been granted Kramonnati in the year 1999, hence he was not entitled to get the time scale. The respondents have also submitted that to be entitled to promotion, the petitioner was required to pass Accounts Training and relied upon a circular dated 24.11.1984 to say that relaxation of age in the training has been given only in the case of departmental examination and not for accounts training. Hence, it is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to get kramonnati is misconceived as also the relaxation from passing the Accounts Training.
4. The petitioner, in his rejoinder submitted that that as per the Government circular dated 24.11.1984, he was exempted from passing the accounts training. Along with the rejoinder the petitioner has also filed a letter dated 1.5.1987 (Annexure P-6) written by the Joint Registrar, Jabalpur to demonstrate that two other persons namely D.R.Bhatt and R.L.Deshmukh were sent to participate in the Accounts Training, but in the case of the petitioner, he was not sent for the said training despite there being clear recommendation for the same. As per the document dated 10.11.1987 (Annexure P-7) the Assistant Registrar had informed the Joint Registrar that it is not possible to send the petitioner for the training in question. Again vide Annexure P-8 dated 15.4.1991 the petitioner's name was recommended for Accounts Training and again vide order dated 30.8.1991 (Annexure P-9) the Joint Registrar, Jabalpur wrote to the Assistant Registrar to send the petitioner immediately, but for the reasons best known to the respondents, he was not sent to participate in the training programme.
5. Apart from that, vide letter dated 23.2.1991 (Annexure P-10) the Joint Registrar had written to the Assistant Registrar that all those persons, who have completed the age of 45 years and not sent on training, can also claim relaxation from participating in the training programme. It is also contended by the petitioner that he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II on 19.11.1986 hence he became eligible for the first Time scale on 19.11.1996 but he was erroneously given the same on 19.11.1999 hence there is a also entitled to receive higher pay scale for 23 months and regarding the second time scale, he is entitled for the same w.e.f.01.04.2006. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner is that he was deliberately not sent on training and now a plea is being taken that the petitioner has not completed the training.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The petitionerâÂÂs contention appears to be correct that he is entitled to get Kramonnati pay scale from December 1996 till October, 1999 and thereafter the difference of second time bound pay scale from 01.04.2006 on completion of 20 years as per the applicable scale. It is apparent that although the petitioner was directed to participate in the Accounts training but vide Annexure P-7 and P/9 dated 30.08.1991 filed with rejoinder it is revealed that he was not sent to participate in the training without any sufficient reason and for which it cannot be said that there was any fault on the part of the petitioner. In such scenario, he cannot be made to suffer for the inaction or negligence which is attributable to the higher authorities.
8. So far as the contention of the respondents that as per the circular dated 24.11.1984 (Annexure R-3) the relaxation has been given only in the case of departmental examination and not for accounts training is concerned, in the absence of any clarificatory circular, such technical distinction cannot be made by passing an order in a particular case and otherwise also, in the letter Annexure-P/10 filed by the petitioner which is issued by the joint Registrar, Co-op. Societies it is specifically mentioned that if the employees are not sent for Accounts training before they complete 45 years, they can claim exemption from the same after 45 years. This letter spells out the true intention of the circular Annexure-R/3 dated 24.11.1984. Hence the contentions of the respondents cannot be accepted.
9. On the aforementioned discussion, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed with a direction to the respondents to correct the pay fixation of the petitioner from the year 1996 and correct pay scale be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to promotion from the date from when he first became eligible for the same and all the consequential benefits be also awarded to the petitioner by the respondents. It is further directed that on the basis of observations made hereinabove, the respondents shall calculate the monetary benefits to the petitioner and this exercise should be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Subobh Abhyankar) Judge 22/11/2016 Ansari