Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Rao Sheshkar vs Principal Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 1 February, 2012
1
W.P. No.3160/2009
1/2/2012:
Shri S. S. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S. K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents.
Challenging the action of the respondents in not granting krammonati to the petitioner after completing 24 years of service, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
On going through the pleadings of the parties and from the facts that have come on record, it is seen that the petitioner was granted promotion to a higher post and he was transferred on such promotion. Petitioner did not want to go on transfer and therefore represented and his request was not acceded to and therefore, promotion was not given effect. Now from the facts that have come on record it is clear that the petitioner has refused the promotion and therefore, he is not entitled for krammonati.
Even though Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the circumstances prevailing then prevented the petitioner from taking promotion but the fact remains that petitioner for whatever reason it be has refused the promotion. Once petitioner has refused the promotion in accordance to scheme and instructions with regard to grant of krammonati, he is not entitled for grant of krammonati.
2Accordingly in denying krammonati for the grounds indicated in the return, I am of the considered view that no case is made out warranting interference in the matter.
Accordingly, finding no merit in the petition, this petition is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.m i shra