--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITITION NO. 4627 / 2007 SMT. SUBHANGI W/O SUBHASH KORRANNE Vs. STATE OF MP & OTHERS * * * * * O R D E R ( 11/3/2011) The petitioner before this court, serving as an Accountant in the School Education Department of the State of MP, has filed this present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of 2nd Kramonnati / higher pay scale on completion of 24 years of service keeping in view the executive instructions issued by the State Government dt. 17/4/1999 / 19/4/1999. The contention of the petitioner is that she was appointed on the post of lower division clerk on 16/7/1979 and thereafter she was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 16/5/90 in the pay scale of 975 – 1650 (revised to Rs.1150 – 1800). The petitioner has further stated that she was --- 2 --- promoted to the post of accountant w.e.f. 19/10/1993 in the pay scale of Rs.4000 – 6000 and the pay scale of the post of Upper Division Clerk was also revised to Rs.4000 -6000 and therefore persons junior to the petitioner continuing on the post of UDC are receiving more pay than the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of accountant cannot be treated as a promotion disentitling her for grant of Kramonnati by virtue of executive instructions dt. 19/4/1999 as the pay scale of UDC and the pay scale of Accountant are same ie., Rs.4000 – 6000. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before this court that the petitioner has completed more than 24 years of service and has received only one upgradation and therefore her case is fully covered under the executive instructions issued by the State Government dt. 19/4/1999 and this Court has also decided a similar writ petition ie., Nathulal s/o Rajami Verma Vs. State of MP & others (WP No. 5774/2009). He has further informed this court that another writ petition ie.,WP No. 5941 / 2010 (s) Prabhat s/o --- 3 --- Raghunath Vs. State of MP has also been allowed on 1/2/2011. A reply has been filed on behalf of respondent State and the stand of the State Government is that the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDC and later on to the post of Accountant and therefore as she has received two promotions the question of considering her case for grant of Kramonnati does not arise. However, the learned Government Advocate has not disputed the judgments delivered by this Court in the case of Nathulal s/o Rajami Verma Vs. State of MP & others (WP No. 5774/2009) and Prabhat s/o Raghunath Vs. State of MP (WP No. 5941 / 2010 (s)). Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDC on 16/5/90 and to the post of accountant on 19/10/93. It is also an admitted fact that the pay scale of accountant and UDC is the same ie., Rs.4000 – 6000. This court while deciding the case of --- 4 --- Nathulal Verma, vide order dt. 29th March, 2010 has held as under : 2. Briefly stated the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 03.04.1976 (Annexure P-2) in the pay scale of Rs.169-300/-( revised Rs.950-1530/-). He was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk vide order dated 11.03.1982 (Annexure P-3) in the pay scale of Rs.195-330/- revised Rs.1150-1800 further revised Rs.1200-2040 as per report of Sihndeo Committee. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.12.1995 he was promoted to the post of Accountant in the same pay scale which was drawing as an Upper Division Clerk. 3. In pursuance to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee the second respondent District Education Officer, Indore vide order dated 28.02.2009 (Annexure P-5) sanctioned the benefit of second Kramonnati payable to him on the basis of Kramonnati Policy of the State Government w.e.f. 05.04.2000 the date on which he had completed 24 years of service and fixed him in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/-. As a consequence of the said order dated 28.02.2009 the petitioner's pay was fixed w.e.f. 05.04.2000 vide order dated 04.04.2009 (Annexure P-6). 4. When the matter stood thus on the basis of objection raised by the fourth respondent, the third respondent issued the impugned order dated 10.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) thereby ordered for withdrawal of the benefit of second --- 5 --- Kramonnati and also ordered for recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition. 5. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is illegal and is violative of the principles of natural justice. He submits that in his service tenure the higher pay scale was extended to him only once when he was promoted vide order dated 11.03.1982 from the post of L.D.C. to the post of U.D.C. He also submits that though vide order dated 04.12.1995 he was promoted as Accountant but in the same pay scale of U.D.C. which he was getting prior to his promotion. Therefore, according to him the objection of the fourth respondent was baseless and contrary to the Kramonnati Policy and the order of cancellation of the benefit is liable to be quashed. 6. In reply the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner was firstly promoted from the post of L.D.C. to the post of U.D.C. vide order dated 11.03.1982 and at that time only he was granted the benefit of higher pay scale. They have admitted that the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Accountant in the same pay scale as he was getting while he was U.D.C. Thus, the benefit of higher pay scale was extended only once on 11.03.1982 when he was promoted as U.D.C. 7. In the circumstances when admittedly on promotion as Accountant the petitioner's pay scale remained the same as he was getting as an U.D.C., he could not have been denied the benefit of the Kramonnati Policy. 8. The petitioner in order to clear the --- 6 --- position that he was promoted on the post of Accountant in the same pay scale has placed reliance on the amendment in M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 1990 on the basis of recommendation of Sinhdeo Committee by which the pay of U.D.C. was revised from 1150-1800/- to 1200-2040 which he was getting when he was promoted to the post of Accountant in the pay scale of 1200-2040. 9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid I find that the petitioner was rightly extended the benefit of second Kramonnati and cancellation of the same vide order dated 10.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) is illegal and is violative of Clause 2 (Kha) of the Kramonnati Policy dated 19.04.1999. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order (Annexure P-1) deserves to be and is hereby quashed. No orders as to the costs. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Nathulal s/o Rajami Verma Vs. State of MP & others (WP No. 5774/2009) as the petitioner is also an identically placed employee and was promoted from the post of UDC to Accountant and also keeping in view the fact that the pay scale of UDC and Accountant the is same ie., Rs.4000 – 6000, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for consideration for grant of 2nd Kramonnati and his case is covered by the executive --- 7 --- instructions issued by the State Government. Resultantly the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Kramonnati and to pass necessary orders within 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled for all consequential benefits in case she is found fit for grant of Kramonnati, keeping in view the executive instructions issued by the State Government dt. 19/4/1999. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR