Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilip Kumar vs Indore Municipal Corporation on 8 November, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:31789
1 WP-22893-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 8 th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 22893 of 2019
DILIP KUMAR
Versus
INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amay Bajaj on behalf of Ms. Aashi Vaidya - Advocate for the
respondent.
ORDER
In the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant him the benefit of first and second Krammonati and also to quash the order dated 13/5/2019, Annexure P-2 whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of first and second Krammonati payscale has been rejected. This is second round of litigation. The petitioner earlier filed W.P No.779/2019 being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent in not extending the benefit of second krammonnati though he has served the department for more than 29 years. The said petition was disposed off with direction to the petitioner to resubmit copy of the representation with all relevant documents before respondent No.2 within period of 10 days. Respondent No.2 in turn was directed to decide the same within reasonable time but not later than 6 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 08-11-2024 19:01:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:31789 2 WP-22893-2019 weeks therefrom. In compliance to the said order vide Annexure P-2 dated 13/5/2019 the claim of the petitioner for grant of krammonati has been rejected.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment as "Beldaar" on fixed salary (Rs.180) vide order no.57 dated 13/8/1979 due to non availability of post as per qualification. Vide order No.205 dated 01.07.1980, petitioner was posted as Beldaar on the payscale Rs.125-172/- for 3 months. The said period was further extended by order dated 3/1/1981 and after sometime vide order dated 17/11/1987, petitioner was transferred from post of Chowkidar to Beldaar in the same payscale. By order dated 15/3/1989, Annexure P-7, the petitioner was appointed on the post of clerk as per qualification in the scale of Rs.870-1650. The petitioner got superannuated 30/9/2017 but he was not granted the benefit of first and second krammonati though he had worked for more than 35 years from the date of appointment. The respondents filed the reply and supported the impugned order of rejection of representation. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for krammonati as per the Government notification, Annexure P-10 dated 25/4/2000.
The respondent further submits that state government issued a notification dated 17 March, 1999 in which it has been categorically mentioned in paragraph 2 of the notification that if an employee has got higher pay scale during period of 12 years and 24 years after his initial appointment, he would not be entitled for the increments. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not yet completed 24 years of service and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 08-11-2024 19:01:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:31789 3 WP-22893-2019 looking into the records of the petitioner it is crystal clear that present petitioner has jumped to pay grades from his initial appointment as a Beldaar for a payscale of Rs.125 to Rs.172 and was promoted to the post of clerk having a pay grade scale of Rs.870-1650/-. Thus looking into the notification of the State Government it is absolutely clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits i.e first, second,& third time payscales as the petitioner does not satisfy the prerequisites off the notification dated 17 March, 1999. The petitioner is not entitled to the enhanced pay grade on the post of chaprasi from his initial appointment as the language of the notification issued by the State Government specifically states that from the initial appointment any employee would entitled to the benefit of subsequent higher pay grade and these benefits are not for those employees who have superseded the pay grade of higher subsequent. Therefore, in light of the notification, the present petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the Karmonatti. It is further submitted that the Mayor-in-Council (oath) after deep considerations in notification dated 31.12.2006 categorically mentioned the fact that any employee would be entitled to second karmonatti to those employees who have completed 24 years of service in a single pay grade of regular services, therefore the present petitioner does not satisfy the conditions of the notification issued by the State Government and which were upheld by the Mayor-in-Council. The Mayor-in-Council is the immediate authority of the present petitioner as the petitioner is a Nagar Palika Karmchari.
In the light of the aforesaid notifications by the State Government and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 08-11-2024 19:01:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:31789 4 WP-22893-2019 Mayor-in-council, the corporation vide order dated 28/2/2007 held that only those employees would be entitled to the benefit of second krammonati, who had completed the term of 24 years of regular services in the same payscale. It is further argued that in light of the notification of the state government and the resolution passed by the municipal corporation Indore that an employee would be entrusted to the benefits of Second krammonati on the condition that the employee has completed 24 years of regular service in a single pay grade. The present petitioner was appointed as a Beldaar in regular service in the year 1980 and was promoted to the post of Chaprasi and thereafter was promoted to the post of clerk having different pay grade. Therefore in light of the notification of the State Government and resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation, and the averments made, the case of the present petitioner is not a fit case for second krammonati.
Counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that as per the Government circular and the resolution of the corporation, the employee is entitled for first krammonati when he had worked on the same pay-scale for period of 12 years and thereafter he will be entitled for 2nd krammonati on completion of further 12 years in the same pay-scale. It is argued that prior to Annexure P-7 dated 15/3/1989, the petitioner was already granted higher payscale and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for Krammonati.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of counsel for the respondent. Upon perusal of Annexure P-3 dated 13/8/1979, the petitioner was appointed on the post of "Beldaar" on account of death of his father in the fixed pay of Rs.180 per Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 08-11-2024 19:01:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:31789 5 WP-22893-2019 month. By order dated 1/7/1980, Annexure P-4, the employees who were appointed on compassionate appointment were again appointed for period of 3 months in the payscale of Rs.125-170/-. The name of the petitioner is mentioned at serial No.5 in the said order on the post of Beldaar. The services of the petitioner were further extended on the same terms and conditions for period of 3 years by order dated 3/1/1981, Annexure P-5. By order dated 17/11/1987, Annexure P-6, the services of the petitioner from the post of Chowkidar in the same pay-scale of Rs.725-930/- were transferred on the vacant post of Beldaar w.e.f 1/12/1987. By order dated 15/3/1989, the dependents of the deceased employees in the department were appointed on class 4th post as per their educational qualification on the post of clerk in the payscale of Rs.870-1650/- on probation for period of one year. The said appointment was subject to passing of hindi typing examination from a recognized board.Thereafter, the petitioner continued on the post of Clerk and superannuated on 13/9/2017 without any promotion or grant of Krammonati.
As discussed from Annexure P-3 to Annexure P-6, it is evident that first time the petitioner was appointed by order dated 13/8/1979 as Beldar on the fixed pay of Rs.180 per month. By order dated 13/8/1979, Annexure P-3 he was appointed for period of 3 months in the pay-scale of Rs.125-172/- on the post of Beldar. By order dated 1/7/1980, Annexure P-4 his services were extended for period of 3 months. Vide Annexure P-5 dated 3/1/1981 the said appointment was extended for further period of 3 months. Vide order dated 17/11/1987 his services were transferred from the post of Chowkidaar to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 08-11-2024 19:01:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:31789 6 WP-22893-2019 vacant post of Beldaar. From the pleadings and the record, it is not clear that when the petitioner was engaged on fixed pay on the post of Beldar by the initial order and the said period was extended then how he was treated to be appointed on the post of chowkidar from the post of Beldaar. He has been transferred from the post of Chowkidar to the vacant post of Belddar.
By order dated 15/3/1989, the dependents of the deceased employees working on the class 4th in the department considering their educational qualification were appointed. The petitioner was appointed on the vacant post of clerk in the payscale of Rs.870-1650/- on probation for period of one year, subject to the condition of passing of Hindi typing examination.
As per the aforesaid discussion, it is crystal clear that all the so called appointments prior to 15/3/1989 cannot be held to be appointment in the regular payscale and regular appointment. All these appointments were either on the fixed pay or for temporary period. The first appointment which came in the pay-scale, on probation, on the post of clerk is 15/3/1989, Annexure P- 7, therefore, all the previous orders cannot be treated to be regular appointment in the payscale. Therefore, the submission of counsel for the respondent that the orders passed prior to 15/3/1989 has to be treated as upgradation in the payscale cannot be accepted. The period of regular appointment has to be counted from 15/3/1989. It is not in dispute that after the regular appointment on 15/3/1989, the petitioner has not been granted any krammonati on completion of 12 years period or 24 years period of service.
In view of the aforesaid, petition is allowed. The impugned order Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 08-11-2024 19:01:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:31789 7 WP-22893-2019 dated 13/5/2019 is quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of first and second krammonati to the petitioner treating the regular services of the petitioner w.e.f 15/3/1989. After granting the said krammonati benefits, the consequential benefits including revised PPO etc. shall be issued. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within period of 3 months from the date of communication of the order.
With the aforesaid, present petition is disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE PK Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 08-11-2024 19:01:58