Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Subhas Kalia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 15 November, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-2881-2017
(SMT. SUBHAS KALIA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR)
5
Gwalior, Dated : 15-11-2017
Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri N.S.Kirar, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Petitioner's case is that he has been arbitrarily subjected to recovery of amount on account of denial of promotion to the post of Accountant from that of Assistant Grade II. It is the case of the respondents that since petitioner had not passed accounts training examination, therefore, he was not entitled to be promoted as Accountant. Learned counsel for the State during the course of the arguments admits in the light of the law laid down in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others as reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 that recovery cannot be made, but at the same time he submits that they have a right to make a fresh pay fixation inasmuch as petitioner having not passed accounts training examination was not entitled to the post of Accountant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that promotion channel was to the post of Accountant/ Establishment Clerk and if petitioner was not having necessary qualification for the post of Accountant, then the respondent should have promoted him as Establishment Clerk. He also submitted that in the light of the law laid down in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. Ajit as reported in 2013(1) M.P.H.T. 225(DB) petitioner was entitled to grant of Kramonati and in terms of the circular issued by the Forest Department as is contained in Annexure P/5, petitioner was not required to possess qualification for Accountant i.e. accounts training pass to get Kramonati. Therefore, petitioner would have been fixed as was fixed on his retirement even otherwise on the post of Establishment Clerk or on account of he being granted Kramonati. Therefore, learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply to this pleading of Shri Sharma that petitioner was otherwise entitled to promotion to the post of Establishment Clerk or in the alternative would have earned Kramonati in terms of Forest Department circular dated 23.3.2010, Annexure P/5.
List after two weeks.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ms/-