Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dwarka Prasad Saket vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MP 749
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WRIT PETITION No. 14720/2016
(DWARKA PRASAD SAKET Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 14.08.2018
Shri Amit Khatri, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Pramod Pandey, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents/State.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 28.07.2016 and 25.08.2015 passed by Commissioner, Rewa and Collector, Satna respectively, whereby his application for grant of basic increments in lieu of completion of 12 years of service has been rejected.
The petitioner was appointed as Revenue Inspector on 23.10.1978 through direct recruitment. He was terminated from service on 02.06.2006 on account of his conviction in a criminal case. He filed an application dated 11.08.2015 for grant of increment on completion of his 12 years of service on the same post in the establishment, on the basis of a circular dated 17th March, 1999. This application was forwarded by the Account Officer on 13.08.2015 to the Collector, who vide order dated 25.08.2015 dismissed 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No. 14720/2016 (DWARKA PRASAD SAKET Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) the same stating that case of petitioner was considered in the year 9/2007 with other Revenue Inspectors. However, the Committee did not find him eligible for grant of Krammonati considering his ACRs for the year 1995-99. Hence, the benefit of the Krammonati could not be given to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Commissioner, Rewa, who dismissed the appeal.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was never informed about the adverse remarks of his ACRs for the year 1997, 1998 and 1999 nor was he informed about the decision of Committee dated 01.09.2001. It is urged that if all the ACRs for the period under consideration were not available with the Committee then his case ought to have been postponed or as per the circular dated 31.05.2003 previous or subsequent ACRs ought to have been considered.
Learned Government Advocate for the State on the other hand has stated that the case of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Commissioner. It is further stated that the petitioner was convicted in a criminal case for six months rigorous imprisonment 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No. 14720/2016 (DWARKA PRASAD SAKET Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) and fine and accordingly he was removed from the services. Therefore, it is stated that the case of the petitioner was rightly rejected and no ground for interference is made out.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is seen that the Scheme of Krammonati for the Government employee dated 17.03.1999 provides that those employees who have completed 12 years or more in the service shall be granted two krammonati as per the conditions mentioned in the circular. The relevant portion of the circular is extracted herein under:
'kkldh; lsodksa ds fy;s dzeksUufr ;kstukA jkT; 'kklu us ;g uhfrxr fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd jkT; 'kklu ds izR;sd fu;fer ,oa 'kkldh; deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh dks mlds iwjs lsokdky esa izos'k ds le; ykxw osrueku ds vfrfjDr de ls de nks mPprj osruekuksa dk ykHk fn;k tk;A 2- jkT; 'kklu dh lsok esa fu;qDr ,sls leLr deZpkjh tks lacaf/kr lsok Hkjrh fu;eksa ds vUrxZr fu;fer :Ik ls fu;qDr fd;s x;s gksa rFkk mlds Ik'pkr ,d gh osrueku ¼rRLFkkuh osrueku lfgr½ esa 12 o"kZ vFkok mlls vf/kd dh vof/k ls] fujUrj dk;Zjr gksa] rks mUgsa fuEukafdr 'krksZa ds v/khu layXu lwph esa n'kkZ;s x;s vuqlkj mPp osrueku esa dzeksUur fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼d½ ;fn mDr 'kkldh; dehZ dh fu;fer lsok esa fu;qfDr Ik'pkr dh lsok vof/k 12 o"kZ ls vf/kd ijUrq 24 o"kZ ls de gS] rFkk mls lsok esa Hkjrh ds le; ykxw izkjafHkd osrueku vFkok mlds rRLFkkuh osrueku ds vfrfjDr dksbZ vU; osrueku 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No. 14720/2016 (DWARKA PRASAD SAKET Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) inksUufr@dzeksUUkfr@p;u@ vixszM djds vFkok vU; fdlh ek/;e ls izkIr ugha gqvk gSA ¼[k½ ;fn mDr 'kkldh; dehZ dh fu;fer lsok esa fu;qfDr ds Ik'pkr~ dh vof/k 24 o"kZ ls vf/kd gS rFkk mls lsok esa izos'k ds le; ykxw osrueku ds vfrfjDr ,d ls vf/kd mPprj osrueku inksUufr@dzeksUufr@p;u@vixszMs'ku vFkok vU; fdlh ek/;e ls u feyk gksA ¼x½ bl ;kstuk ds vUrxZr dzeksUufr dk ykHk iznk; djus ds fy;s mDr deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh ds foxr 5 o"kZ ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa dk ijh{k.k mlh izdkj fd;k tkosxk ftl izdkj inksUufr ds izdj.kksa esa fd;k tkrk gS] rFkk mi;qDr ik;s tkus ij gh dzeksUufr dk ykHk fn;k tk;sxkA ¼?k½ dzeksUufr gksus ij osru dk fu/kkZj.k dzeksUufr osrueku esa vxyh LVst ij fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkosxkA ^^ijUrq ;fn Hkfo"; esa blh osrueku esa inksUufr dh tkrh gS rks mlds osru fu/kkZj.k ,slk ekurs gq, fd;k tkosxk tSls fd lacaf/kr deZpkjh iwoZ ds osrueku esa gh pyk vk jgk gks rFkk mls dzeksUufr ds QyLo:Ik osru fu/kkZj.k dk ykHk ugha feyk gksA^^ ¼p½ bl dzeksUufr ds QyLo:Ik lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh ds inuke esa fdlh izdkj dk ifjorZu ugha fd;k tk;sxkA Rules regarding consideration of ACRs in case of promotion which is also made applicable for consideration of the case of Krammonati are extracted herein under:
2@& cSBd esa iwokZuqlkj izkf/kdkj ,oa fl)kar viuk;s x;s tks fuEukuqlkj gS%& inksUufr gsrq p;u e0iz0 Hkw&vfHkys[k fu;ekoyh ds Hkkx 3&v/;k;&,d&dafMdk pkj ds mica/k rFkk e/;izns'k twfu;j iz'kkldh; lsok HkrhZ fu;e 1980 ds mica/k ds vuqlkj fd;k x;k-
rnuqlkj%& 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No. 14720/2016 (DWARKA PRASAD SAKET Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) ¼d½ ;g p;u fnukad 1-4-92 dh fLFkfr n'kkZus okyh jktLo fujh{kd dh indze lwph ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gSA ¼[k½ lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj vuqlwfpr tkfr rFkk tutkfr ds fy;s dze'k 16 ,oa 23 izfr'kr dksVk fu/kkZfjr gS rnuqlkj p;u esa mldk /;ku j[kk x;k gSA ¼x½ HkrhZ fu;e ds vuqlkj fnukad 1-4-92 dks 5 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus okys jktLo fujh{kd dks gh inksUufr ds fy;s fopkj fd;k x;kA ¼?k½ inksUufr gsrq p;u ofj"Brk&lgxq.k ¼lhfu;fjVh de esfjV½ ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;kA ¼p½ inksUufr gsrq ;ksX;rk ds fy;s iw.kZ 5 o"kksZa ds vfHkfyf[kr okf"kZd xksiuh; izfrosnu o"kZ 1992 ls 1996 rd dk ewY;kadu fopkj esa fy;k x;kA tgkW rd ikWp o"kksZa esa fdlh Hkh o"kZ ;k nks o"kksZa ls ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa ds miyC/k u gksus ij iwoZ o"kksZa ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa ds ns[kus ds ckn fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA ¼N½ lfefr }kjk ,sls mEehnokjksa ds izdj.k esa tks inksUufr ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr ekin.M dh U;wure lhek ij vkdkj fopkj.kh; gq, mu izdj.kksa esa mudh xksiuh; izfrosnuksa esa vafdr xszfMax dks gh Ik;kZIr ugha ekurs gq;s lexz xksiuh; izfrosnuksa dk ewY;kadu djus ds Ik'pkr~ gh fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA ¼t½ fopkj.kh; lwph esa 'kkfey lsok fuo`Rr@e`r@iwoZ in ij izR;kofrZr gq, ,oa iwoZ ls inksUur mEehnokjksa dks inksUufr gsrq fopkj ugha fd;k x;kA ¼>½ inksUufr gsrq ;ksX;rk ds fy;s fuEufyf[kr ekin.M viuk;s x;s%& 1& lfu"Bk lansg ls ijs gksA 2& rhu o"kksZa ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa dk ewY;kadu vo'; gh Js.kh vPNk ^^[k^^ dk gks ,oa fopkj esa yh tkus okyh 5 o"kksZa ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa esa fdlh ,d o"kZ dk ewY;kadu ? kfV;k ^^?k^^ Js.kh dk u gksA 3& tgkW Åij crk;s vuqlkj fdlh o"kZ dk ewY;kadu ? kfV;k ^^?k^^ Js.kh dk gks rks ml fLFkfr esa fujLr le>k tk;sxk] ;fn ckn esa fopkj {ks= ds o"kksZa esa ls nks o"kZ dk dk;Z Js.kh ¼cgqr vPNk½ ^^d^^ jgk gks] vFkok fdlh ,d o"kZ dk dk;Z Js.kh mRd`"V ^^$d^^ dk gksA 4& ;fn lacaf/kr jktLo fujh{kd ds fdlh o"kZ ds xksiuh; izfrosnu esa foijhr vfHk;qfDr vafdr gks] ijUrq 6 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No. 14720/2016 (DWARKA PRASAD SAKET Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) lalwfpr u dh xbZ gks rks mDr foijhr vfHk;qfDr fopkj esa ugha yh xbZA 5& fopkj {ks= esa vafre o"kZ dk xksiuh; izfrosnu esa ^^? k^^ ¼?kfV;k½ Js.kh dk u gksA^^ On 31.05.2003 another circular was issued by the Government, wherein it was stated that due to unavailability of the ACRs of the period under consideration, the cases for krammonati cannot be kept pending and the confidential report for subsequent period may be considered. The relevant circular is extracted herein under:
e/;izns'k 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ^^ea=ky;^^ dzekad ,Q 1&1@1@osvki@99 Hkksiky] fnukad 31&5&2003 izfr] 'kklu ds leLr foHkkx] v/;{k] jkTkLo e.My] e/;izns'k] Xokfy;j] leLr laHkkxk;qDr] leLr foHkkxk/;{k] leLr dysDVlZ] e/;izns'k] fo"k;&'kkldh; dfeZ;ksa dks dzeksUUkfr ;kstuk-
lUnHkZ&bl foHkkx dk lela[;d Kki fnukad 19&4&1999] 26&4&2000] 27&2&2001 ,oa fnukad 12&2&2002- fofHkUu deZpkjh la?kksa }kjk ;g voxr djk;k x;k Fkk fd dqN foHkkxksa esa 'kkldh; lsodksa dks ^^dzeksUufr ;kstuk^^ dk ykHk bl dkj.k ugha fey ik jgk gS D;ksafd muds fiNys 5 o"kksZ ds xksiuh; izfrosnu miyC/k ugh gSa-7
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No. 14720/2016 (DWARKA PRASAD SAKET Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2- 'kklu us mijksDr dfBukbZ ij fopkj dj bl foHkkx ds lUnfHkZr Kki fnukad 12 Qjojh 2002 }kjk ;s funsZ'k izlkfjr fd;s Fks fd 'kkldh; lsodksa ds fopkjk/khu 5 o"kZ ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa esa ls dqN o"kksZa ds xksiuh; izfrosnu miyC/k ugha gksus ds vk/kkj ij muds dzeksUufr izdj.k yafcr ugha j[ks tk;sa- ftrus o"kksZa ds xksiuh; izfrosnu miyC/k ugha gSa mrus xksiuh; izfrosnu fopkjk/khu vof/k ds ioZ o"kksZa vFkok ckn ds o"kksZa dks ns[kdj dzeksUufr ij fopkj dj fy;k tk;-
3- eq[; lfpo dh v/;{krk esa lEiUu jkT; Lrjh; la;qDr ijke'kZnk=h ifj"kn~ dh cSBd fnukad 7&4&2003 esa dqN deZpkjh la?kksa us voxr djk;k gS fd mijksDr dkj.kksa ls vHkh Hkh dqN dk;kZy;ksa esa 'kkldh; lsodksa ds dzeksUufr ds ekeys yafcr gSa-
4- lHkh fu;qfDr izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks iqu% funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd 'kklu ds mijksDr funsZ'kksa dk lE;d~ ikyu djrs gq, 'kkldh; lsodksa ds dzeksUufr ds ekeyksa dk izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij le;kof/k esa fujkdj.k fd;k tk;-
5- Hkfo"; esa 'kkldh; lsodksa ds dzeksUufr ds ekeyksa esa vuko';d foyac ugha gks vr% fuEukuqlkj LFkkbZ funsZ'k tkjh fd;s tkrs gSa%& ¼1½ izR;sd ftyk Lrjh; fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh lacaf/kr ftyk dysDVj ,oa foHkkxk/;{k dks izR;sd o"kZ dh 31 tqykbZ rd bl vk'k; dk izek.k&i= izLrqr djsxk fd mlus ml o"kZ ds 30 twu rd M~;w lHkh dzeksUufr ekeyksa dk fuiVkjk dj fn;k gS- lacaf/kr o"kZ dh f}rh; N %ekgh ¼fnukad 1 tqykbZ ls 31 fnlEcj½ ds fo"k; esa mDrkuqlkj izek.k&i= fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk ftyk dysDVj foHkkxk/;{k dks vkxkeh o"kZ dh 31 tuojh rd izLrqr fd;k tk;sxk- ftyk Lrjh; fu;qfDr izkf/kdkfj;ksa ls Åij ds fu;qfDr izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ,slk izek.k&i= foHkkxk/;{k dks izLrqr fd;k tk;sxk-
¼2½ foHkkxk/;{k vius v/khuLFk dk;kZy; ds fo"k; esa mDrkuqlkj izek.k&i= vius iz'kkldh; foHkkx dks o"kZ dh izFke N% ekgh ds fy;s 15 vxLr rd ,oa f}rh; N% ekgh ds fy;s vkxkeh o"kZ dh 15 Qjojh rd izLrqr djsaxs-
¼3½ rRi'pkr~ izR;sd foHkkx ¼,sls foHkkxksa dks NksM+dj ftuds v/khuLFk LFkkiuk ugha gS½ ds izeq[k lfpo@lfpo vius foHkkx ds fy;s mDrkuqlkj izek.k&i= izR;sd o"kZ dh izFke N%ekgh ds fy;s 31 vxLr rd ,oa f}rh; N% ekgh ds vkxkeh o"kZ ds 1 ekpZ rd lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ¼'kk[kk&3½ dks izLrqr djsaxs-
8
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No. 14720/2016 (DWARKA PRASAD SAKET Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) d`Ik;k mDr funsZ'kksa dk dM+kbZ ls ikyu fd;k tk,-
gLrk-@& ¼,e- ds- oekZ½ vij lfpo] e/;izns'k 'kklu] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx-^^ In the present case, it is reflected from the impugned order that the Commissioner after considering the remark of the Collector and the record of the case has observed that the Collector, Satna has wrongly mentioned that the meeting for grant of Krammonati was held in September, 2007 which is a typographical error as the meeting was held in September, 2001, wherein the name of petitioner was considered with other similarly placed employees. In the said meeting the petitioner was not found eligible on the basis of his ACRs for the year 1995-1999 as he was given Grade 'Gha' in the year 1998 and 'Ga' for the year 1999. It is also reflected from the impugned order that the confidential report of the petitioner for the year 1995-1997 were not available with the committee. Therefore, the committee considered only the ACRs of 1998 and 1999 and found the petitioner ineligible for grant of krammonati. The Commissioner 9 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No. 14720/2016 (DWARKA PRASAD SAKET Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) thereafter has observed that even if subsequent three years ACRs of the petitioner has to be considered, as per circular dated 31.05.2003, the petitioner would not be eligible for krammonati due to the effect of Grade 'Gha' in the ACR of the year 1998 and rejected the appeal of the petitioner.
It is evident from the circular dated 17.03.1999 that for grant of krammonati five years ACR of an employee has to be considered as they are considered in case of promotion. Annexure R/2 filed by the respondents reflects that the petitioner's five years ACR from 1995 to 1999 were considered in the year 2001 by the committee in its meeting on September, 2001. It is clearly reflected that from 1995 to 1997 ACR of three years were unavailable with the committee. Under these circumstances, the committee ought not to have considered his case and postponed it for future. It is also apparent from the record that no information about the adverse ACRs or about the decision of the Committee was not given or intimated to the petitioner. The Commissioner while passing the order has also not considered the rules regarding consideration of ACRs which clearly mentions that in 10 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No. 14720/2016 (DWARKA PRASAD SAKET Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) case, in one of the years, remark obtained by the employee is 'Gha' the same shall be considered as cancelled, if the later two years under consideration remark of 'Ka' has been received by the employee. In the present case, it is reflected from the copy of the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner which he has obtained under RTI that petitioner was given the Grade 'Ka' for the year 2000-01 and 2002. Hence, the effect of the entry 'Gha' as per the rules will be nullified. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was removed from the services because of his conviction will have no effect for consideration of the case of petitioner, as the case of petitioner for grant of Krammonati was not rejected on the ground of his conviction in a criminal case.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances especially the fact that the adverse remark was not communicated to the petitioner nor the decision of the committee was communicated to him and also the fact that when complete ACRs of five years were not available with the Committee on the date of consideration then the committee ought to have postponed the matter with regard to the petitioner, the 11 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No. 14720/2016 (DWARKA PRASAD SAKET Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) impugned order is therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded with a direction to reconsider the case of petitioner for grant of Krammonati in the light of circular dated 31.03.2003 and the rules in this regard.
(Nandita Dubey) Judge b Digitally signed by BHARTI GADGE Date: 2018.08.21 13:43:44 +05'30'