Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2025
1 WP-12585-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 13th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 12585 of 2024
RAKESH KUMAR DUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Atul Kumar Rai - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Lokesh Jain Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by withdrawal of the benefit of advance increment which was granted to the petitioner in terms of FR22-D on promotion from the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) to Accountant which took place on 04.01.2012. The aforesaid grant of advance increment was later on withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner had got the upgraded pay scale upon getting financial upgradation in the year 2007 and had got the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200+AGP 2800 by way of financial upgradation which was not substantive scale of UDC and therefore, since the pay scales of substantive posts of UDC and Accountant are not same, therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefit of FR22-D.
2. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra and the matter has been conclusively decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Siya Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in (2013) 1 MPLJ 51 , wherein the Coordinate Bench has held as under:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-08-2025 18:21:332 WP-12585-2024
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are as under:-
The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Upper Division Teacher. The petition was promoted as Head Master middle school by order dated 30-6-2005. As an Upper Division Teacher, the petitioner was getting Kramonnati scale of Rs. 5500- 9000. The pay scale on promotion as Head Master was also same i.e. 5500-9000. The post of Head Master involves duties of higher responsibilities. On completion of age of superannuation, the petitioner retired on 31-7-2009. At the time of retirement, an objection was raised that petitioner was promoted in the same pay scale, and therefore, F.R. 22-D is not applicable. Consequently, by taking away the said benefit, it is held that recovery be made.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying the judgment of this Court reported in 2004(3) MPLJ 397, R.S. Sikarwar v. State of M.P., submits that this matter is squarely covered by the said judgment.
4. Per contra, Shri Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, submits that petitioner has already enjoyed the benefits of Kramonnati scale, and therefore, no further benefits under F.R. 22-D are permissible. It is stated that objection was raised by Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts, Chambal Division, and therefore, department has taken the action.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The reasons for grant of Kramonnati and F.R. 22-D are different. It has no correlation with each other. It is settled in law that benefit of Kramonnati or financial upgradation is granted when employee is not getting promotion for a considerable long time/stipulated period. To avoid the stagnation, he is being granted financial upgradation which does not involve any change of nature of duties and responsibilities. In other words, upon grant of Kramonnati, the employee performs same nature of duties with same designation, but gets higher scale of pay, whereas F.R. 22-D is given when employee is promoted from one post to another carrying same pay scale but having greater responsibilities and duties. Petitioner's specific assertion that the post of Head Master is carrying greater responsibilities and duties is not disputed by the other side. Thus, F.R. 22-D is clearly applicable. This Court in R.S. Sikarwar (supra) has also considered the same and decided to extend the benefit to the petitioner. Consequently, the stand of the respondents that F.R. 22-D is not applicable because of grant of financial upgradation is without any basis and substance. No provision is shown to this Court which deprives the benefit of F.R. 22- D to the petitioner on grant of financial up-gradation. Consequently, the recovery arising out of taking away the benefit of F.R. 22-D is also impermissible.
3. The present case is also on similar footing and no distinguishing feature could be pointed out by the counsel for the State from the aforesaid Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-08-2025 18:21:33 3 WP-12585-2024 case.
5. Resultantly, the impugned orders whereby the benefit of FR22-D has been withdrawn are set-aside and the order Annexure P/9 rejecting the representation is also set-aside.
6. The respondents are directed to restore the benefit of FR 22-D to the petitioner from his due date with all consequential benefits. Recovery if any made, is also set aside.
7. Let the needful be done within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
8. The petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE MISHRA Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-08-2025 18:21:33