N.K. Pandey v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Vandana Kasrekar, J.:— With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 27.05.2003, by which the respondents have refused to grant the benefit of up gradation of pay on the ground that he was appointed on the post the Second Grade Clerk in the department of Hydrometeorology vide order dated 20.10.1962 Later on he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk and thereafter the petitioner was again promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I vide order dated 21.08.1998 However, due to family hardship, the petitioner refused to accept the said promotion. The department issued the order dated 24.02.1999 in which it has been stated that as the petitioner has refused his promotion on the post on the ground of family problem, the petitioner is debarred from getting promotion for a period of one year or till the sitting of next D.P.C The petitioner, in the meantime became entitled for getting up-gradation of pay, however, the Chief Engineer while order dated 27.05.2003 had refused to extend the benefit of up-gradation of pay to the petitioner on the ground that he has refused to accept the promotion. Against the said order, the petitioner has submitted representation on 25.06.2003, however no action has been taken on the said representation and has not been extended the benefit of up-gradation of pay and the impugned order has been passed. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order dated 17.03.2010 passed by this Court in W.P No. 8373/2005.

3. The State has filed its reply and in the reply it is submitted that in pursuance of guidelines issued by the State Government on 05.07.2002, it has been stated that the employees who have refused the promotion shall not been entitled for the benefit of time bound pay-scale. As the petitioner has refused to accept the promotion, therefore, the order dated 27.05.2003 has rightly been passed by the respondents.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petition has been granted promotion on 21.08.1998 and the circular for grant of up-gradation of pay has been issued by the State Government on 19.04.1999 It is further clarified that the circular dated 05.07.2002, which has been issued by the State Government thereby withdrawing the benefit of time bound pay-scale to the employees, who have refused the promotion has come into operation after the refusal of the petitioner for promotion and therefore, this circular cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner. This Court in the case of Smt. Prasanna Nair v. State of Madhya Pradesh (W.P No. 8373/2005 (s) has held as under:

“According to the circular Annexure-P7 and P8, employees who had completed 12 years of service in a particular post without receiving any promotion or kramonnati are entitled for the benefit of kramonnati. Petition had completed 12 years of service on one post without any promotion and without any benefit of higher pay scale and in that view of the matter, she was granted kramonnati vide Annexure-P10. If the petitioner had fulfilled the condition of stagnating for a period of 12 years without any promotion then it is not known that as to how the promotion in the year 2003 i.e after completing 12 years of service would debar her from claiming kramonnati due to stagnating in a post for 12 years. That being so, the condition stipulated by the State Government and action of the respondents is found to be unsustainble. Apart from this, when kramonnati was granted to the petitioner from 19.04.1999 vide Annexure-P10 dated 26.06.2000, the condition contained debarring the kramonnati on the ground of refusal to accept promotion as contained in Annexure-P2 dated 5.7.2002 and 23.07.2002 was not at all in existence. The said condition was enforced for the first time in July 2002 and the said condition cannot be retrospectively applied to the petitioner and respondents cannot take away the benefits which were already granted to the employees more than three years back ie. The date on which petitioner was granted kramonnati vide Annexure-P10 dated 26.06.2000 Accordingly, finding the action of the respondents to be unsustainble for the reasons indicated hereinaabove, this petition is allowed.”

5. In view of the order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Prasanna (supra), the present petition deserves to be allowed and the order dated 27.05.2003 is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of up-gradation of pay (kramonnati) to the petitioner with effect from 19.04.1999 and to re-fix his pension and retiral benefits accordingly.

6. Certified copy as per rules.