Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Priti Bhattacharya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
Case No. WP. No.12030/2016
Parties Name Smt. Priti Bhattacharya
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Date of Judgment 19-12-2017
Bench Constituted Single Bench
Judgment delivered by Justice Sujoy Paul
Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting
Name of counsels for parties Petitioner: Shri N.S. Ruprah, Advocate
Respondents: Shri Ankit Agrawal,G.A.
Law laid down -
Significant paragraph numbers -
(Order)
19.12.2017
In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the challenge is made to the order dated 30-11-2013/02-12-2013 (Annexure P/1) whereby the respondents informed the petitioner that the employees, who have declined to go on promotion, will not get the benefit of Kramonnati. It is pointed that the benefit of second Kramonnati was given to the petitioner by order dated 13-01-2012 (Annexure P/2) and said benefits were extended w.e.f. 26-11-2003. Thereafter, the promotion order was passed on 18-01-2012 whereby the petitioner was given promotion on the post of Lecturer. The petitioner decided to forego this promotion. On the basis of this action of the petitioner, the respondents decided to take away the benefit of Kramonnati.
2. Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in (2010) 4 MPLJ 266 (MP) (State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Trilok Chand Gupta) and argued that refusal to join at transferred place
-:- 2 -:-
WP. No. 12030 of 2016on promotion would not have any adverse impact on the benefits of higher pay scale arising out of Kramonnati.
3. Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order and submits that the facts mentioned in Trilok Chand Gupta (supra) are different qua the case of the petitioner.
4. No other point is pressed by the parties.
5. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
6. In the opinion of this Court, the benefit of Kramonnati is being granted to the employees because within stipulated time (12 and 24 years of service) no promotional benefits could be provided to them. In order to provide enthusiasm financial upgradation is being given to such stagnating employees. In the case of present petitioner, the said benefit was extended w.e.f. 26-11-2003 by issuing the order on 13-01-2012. This shows that the petitioner became entitled to get the benefit of Kramonnati in November 2003 whereas she was declared fit for promotion in January, 2012. During the period of 12 and 24 years, the petitioner was not given any promotion and, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to forego such promotion during these 12/24 years. The petitioner's right to get Kramonnati accrued on completion of 24 years of service and said benefit and right cannot be taken away on the basis of foregoing a subsequent promotion. The same principle is laid down in Trilok Chand Gupta (supra).
7. Considering the aforesaid, impugned order dated 02-12-2013 (Annexure P/1) cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The respondents shall provide all Kromonnati benefits to the petitioner flowing from Kramonnati order dated 13-01-2012. The benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within 60 days from the date of production of copy of this order. Since the respondents have illegally withheld arrears of Kramonnati to the petitioner, she shall get interest on delayed payment in consonance with the judgment of Supreme Court reported in (1994) 2 SCC 240 ( Union of India vs. S.S. Sandhawalia). In the present case, the
-:- 3 -:-
WP. No. 12030 of 2016petitioner was found entitled for grant of Kramonnati and said benefit was illegally withheld by the respondents for the reasons solely attributable to them. Thus, the petitioner will get 12% interest on the said arrears of Kramonnati from due date till the date of realization on the said amount.
8. The petition is allowed. No cost.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE mohsin Digitally signed by MOHAMMED MOHSIN QURESHI Date: 2017.12.21 10:25:31 +05'30'