Madhya Pradesh High Court
Baikunth Prasad Dixit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 6 th OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 3360 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
BAIKUNTH PRASAD DIXIT S/O SHRI SHESHMANI DIXIT,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TIME KEEPER
IN THE OFFICE OF SUB DIVISION OFFICER PWD (B/R0
SUB DIVISION SIDHI H.NO.22 WARD NO.2 SUBHASH
NAAR BANIYA COLONY, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY ROY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF P.W.D NIRMAN BHAWAN
PLOT NO 27 28 ARERA HILLS (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS
D E PA R T M E N T REWA CIRCLE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT (B/R) SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DIRECTOR FINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF
MADHYA PRADESH , VALLABH BHAWAN,
MANTRALAYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PUSHPENDRA
PATEL
Signing time: 4/6/2023
7:26:25 PM
2
following:
ORDER
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2016 Annexure P-1 whereby the benefit of Time Scale of Pay was given to the petitioner but benefit o f Krammonati was not extended in his favour as per the judgment of this Court in W.P.(s) No.1070/2003 (K.L. Asre Vs. State of M.P.) and in W.A.No.966/2009 (State of M.P. and Ors. Vs. Teju Lal Yadav).
Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Division Bench of this Court has made it clear that contingency paid employees are also entitled to get 'Krammonati'. Thus, there is no justification in not extending the benefit of 'Krammonati' scheme in favour of petitioner, a Time Keeper.
Per contra, learned G.A. urged that no doubt that in the case of K.L. Asre and Tejulal (supra), the benefit of 'Krammonati' scheme were directed to be extended in favour of certain other employees but petitioners therein were not Time Keeper, indeed K.L. Asre was a Driver. Against one such judgment passed by this Court in favour of work-charge employees, SLP is pending before the Supreme Court.
No other point is pressed by counsel for the parties. A plain reading of Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.912/2015 (State of M.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Garg) shows that Division Bench considered the judgment of Tejulal Yadav and K.L. Asre and also certain order passed in S.L.P. The Division Bench opined that curtains on the issue are finally drawn by this Court in K.L. Asre (supra). In paragraph 17 of the judgment, the Division Bench gave a finding that Hon. Supreme Court approved the principles laid down in the case of K.L. Asre and Tejulal Yadav Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 4/6/2023 7:26:25 PM 3 (supra) by dismissing the SLP of the State Government. This issue is no more open for consideration.
I n the considered opinion of this Court, the questions involved in the aforesaid case was whether the work-charge and contingency paid employees are entitled for the benefit of 'Krammonati'. Whether in the said establishment, the employee is working as Driver or Waterman makes no difference. Thus, the benefit of judgment in K.L. Asre (supra) cannot be confined to Drivers only. The basic purpose for grant of Krammonati is to provide financial upgradation to stagnating employees who have not earned any promotion within 12 and 24 years of service. If the petitioner is similarly situated in this respect merely because he is holding a different post, he cannot be deprived from the fruits of 'Krammonati' scheme.
In view of the foregoing analysis, the action of respondents in not extending the benefit of 'Krammonati' scheme in favour of the petitioner is disapproved. The respondents shall consider and extend the benefit of the judgment of K.L. Asre and Tejulal Yadav in favour of the petitioner.
Resultantly, they shall consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Krammonati and if he is found suitable, shall provide him Krammonati from due date with full arrears. For the purpose of grant of said benefit, Annexure P- 1 will not come in the way of the petitioner.
The entire exercise shall be completed within 90 dates from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) Signature Not Verified JUDGE Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 4/6/2023 7:26:25 PM 4 pp Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 4/6/2023 7:26:25 PM