Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bal Ram Kanheriya vs The State Of M.P.And Ors. on 20 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18435
1 WPS-881-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 20 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PET. (SERVICE) No. 881 of 2005
BAL RAM KANHERIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.AND ORS.
Appearance:
Shri Anil Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.S. Tomar - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:-
"The petitioner, therefore, most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition thereby issuing a writ of Mandamus thereby quash the impugned orders as contained in Annexure P/1 and P/2 and the respondents may further kindly be directed to extend the benefit of Krammonati Scheme with effect from the date from which juniors have been promoted under the said Scheme and pay the arrears along-with interest @ 12% per annum. The petitioner further prays that respondents may kindly be directed to re- fixed the pension of the petitioner. To pass such other further order(s) deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. Cost may also be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the original petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Grade III in the month of November, 1966. The State Government has introduced a Scheme namely Time Bound Advancement Scheme thereby provision has been made for first promotion Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA SHARMA Signing time: 8/23/2025 11:07:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18435 2 WPS-881-2005 on completion of 12 years and second on completion of 20 years. The State Government has again issued a modified scheme vide Circular dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999 thereby it was decided that if an employee is not getting the promotion during the entire career, he is entitled for two higher pay-scale, first on completion of 12 years and second on completion of 24 years. For the said benefit, ACRs of last five years are to be examined. Department has extended the benefit of Krammonati to the juniors than the petitioner but the same benefit was not granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 08.09.2000 which was rejected vide order dated 22.01.2005(Annexure P/1). Against the order dated 22.01.2005, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax by Annexure P/2, the same has been rejected by order dated 08.09.2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that nothing adverse ACR has been communicated to the original petitioner for last five years and on the basis of uncommunicated ACR, the original petitioner was found unfit for promotion/Krammonati by the Screening Committee and if the adverse ACR has been communicated to the original petitioner then the original petitioner was not able to file representation against the adverse ACR and the other employees who were junior to the original petitioner have been extended the benefit of Krammonati scheme and the original petitioner has been denied the same.
4. During the pendency of the petition, the original petitioner was expired on 30.08.2014 and before issuing the Annexure P/1 and P/2, the aspect of not communicating the ACR has not been considered by the respondents. The original petitioner was appointed in the year of 1966 on the post of LDC which was subsequently re-designated as Assistant Grade III and the original petitioner was Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA SHARMA Signing time: 8/23/2025 11:07:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18435 3 WPS-881-2005 retired from the service in the month of January, 2004 from the said post without getting any promotion in the entire service career, which is against the spirit of Krammonati Scheme. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that original petitioner has already expired, therefore, at present, the case of the petitioner regarding Krammonati cannot be rejected on the ground of an adverse ACR/CR, which was not up to the mark and has affected the entitlement to Krammonati.
5. Per contra , learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition and supports the impugned orders Annexures P/1 and P/2. Learned counsel for the respondent/State further submitted that original petitioner was not found eligible for getting the benefit of Krammonati, therefore, the same has not been extended to the original petitioner.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The case of the original petitioner has been rejected on the basis of the CR which has not been communicated to the petitioner and as per the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 566 , ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives and public servant may feel dissatisfied with the ACR. Communication of the entry enables him to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more confirming to the principles of natural justice and as per the aforesaid judgment, every entry in the ACR- poor, fair, average, good or very good must be communicated to employee within a reasonable period. Admittedly, the ACR which affected the Krammonati was not communicated to the original petitioner.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA SHARMA Signing time: 8/23/2025 11:07:45 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18435 4 WPS-881-2005 As the original petitioner expired on 30.08.2014 and the legal representative is already on record, if the adverse ACR is now communicated to the legal representatives of the original petitioner, they would not be in a position to file a representation against the ACR.
8. Considering the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 22.01.2005 (Annexure P/1) and 08.09.2000 (Annexure P/2) are hereby quashed and respondents are directed to extend the benefit of Krammonati scheme with effect from the date from which the junior have been benefitted under the Krammonati scheme and respondents are further directed to consequently revise pay fixation, re-fix the pension and extend arrears from January 2004 to 30th, August, 2014 and thereafter revise the family pension and also revise all retiral dues on the basis of the revised pay fixation and pay the arrears accordingly. The respondents are directed to comply the aforesaid direction within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT) JUDGE Monika Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA SHARMA Signing time: 8/23/2025 11:07:45 AM