Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Prasad Kaushal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 29 October, 2013
W.P.NO.19272/2013
29.10.2013
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
The claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by a
decision of this Court where it has been held that in case an
employee is granted a benefit of Kramonnati on account of
stagnating on one post for a period of 12 or 24 years, the
said benefit cannot be withdrawn on account of subsequent
promotion. As per the instructions issued by the State
Government, the salary of the person is to be fixed in
accordance to the scale of pay on which he was working
before the date of his promotion in terms of Fundamental
Rule 22-A.
The issue involved in this writ petition has already been
decided by this Court in W.P. No.379/2009, Smt. Santosh
Verma vs. State of M.P. & others, vide order dated
19.07.2011.
The aforesaid writ petition has been disposed of in the
following manner :
"9. The fact remains that the petitioner
has retired on 30th June, 2008 and on this
date she was drawing the salary of
Rs.9,900/- basic. The Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter
'rules' for short) are squarely applicable in
the case of the petitioner. The pension is to
be fixed on the basis of last emolument
drawn, which is defined in Rule 30 of the
Rules. In a specific word it is said that the
impression emolument means pay as
defined in Rule 9(21) of the Fundamental
Rules including dearness pay, if any, as
determined by the order of the Government
issued from time to time, which a
Government servant was receiving
immediately before his retirement or on the
date of his death as the case may be. A
plain and simple reading of this definition
makes it clear that the last salary drawn by
the petitioner was to be taken into account
for fixation of her pension. If computation is
done on the basis of this salary, which the
petitioner was drawing, there was no
question of any excess payment to the
petitioner and no recovery whatsoever could
have been ordered. In view of this, the order
of recovery contained in the pension
payment order (Annexure P-5) is per se
illegal. The State Government while issuing
the memos has made it clear that once the
benefit of Kramonnati is granted, if the
promotion is subsequently given in a pay
scale, which is lesser than the pay scale of
Kramonnati, the pay is to be refixed in the
manner no loss is caused to the Government
employee. In paragraph 4 of the circular
order dated 18.08.2005 (Annexure P-7 to the
writ petition) this particular aspect has been
specifically dealt with and it is said that
though on regular promotion after the grant
of Kramonnati pay scale the pay is required
to be refixed in the pay scale applicable to
the promotional post but in case it is found
that on account of grant of Kramonnati if a
person is getting more salary than the
maximum of the pay scale of the
promotional post then to avoid the financial
loss to such a person, excess amount than
the maximum of the pay scale be given as
personal pay. Therefore, it is clear that the
act on the part of the official respondents
was violative of the instructions of the State Government and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
10. The petition is, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to revise the salary of the petitioner on her promotion on the post of Lecturer as has been ordered vide order dated 29.08.2005 (Annexure P-2) in appropriate manner in terms of the circular dated 18.08.2005 (Annexure P-7) and calculating the salary of the petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn by her, the pension case of the petitioner be prepared. Entire amount of recovery deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner be refunded to her and proper pension be calculated, arrears of pension and other retiral dues be paid to her within a period of 3 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner will also get interest on the amount so deducted from her gratuity and on the amount of arrears of pension and other retiral dues from the date the same was due till the date of actual payment at the rate of 6% per annum."
In view of the order passed in aforesaid writ petition, this petition is allowed in the same manner. Order impugned (Annexure P-2) dated 14.07.2011 is quashed and respondents are directed to take action for granting benefit to the petitioner in accordance to the order already passed by this Court in case of Smt. Santosh Verma (supra). Necessary action be taken accordingly within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON)
hsp JUDGE