c ^ /— 'f 1 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR w.p.[S]No.....?.5....^r i^ Petitioner: Respondents: \^^.. o<h..^.^\y ......s^^" ^^^^ ^'.^s ^ -^,...- B.R^ Suryawa^is^. ^ S/o Late S.R. Suryawa^aisi, Aged about 59 years, ^ R/o Birkona, BirkonaP.O. Bilaspur Dist, CG State. Versus y StateofCG Through: Secretary, Public Works Deptt, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, CG State. 2) The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur Dist, CG State. 3) Jt. Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Dist, CG State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUITION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITfS) /ORDER (S} 1 DIRECTION fS) ETC. mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION <S) No. 05 of2010 PETITIONER : B.R.Suryawanshi. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofC.G. & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri K.R.Nair, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDERrORAL) (Passed on 06th day of April, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ/direction to the respondents to fix his pay as per revised pay scale of Rs. 9300/- to 34,300/-and further, compute his retiral dues and pensionary benefits accordingly on the basis ofhigher pay scale. The indisputable facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as Second Grade Clerk (Asst. Gr. III) in the respondent Public Works Department on 05.04.1972 on the pay scale of Rs. 90-170/-. Thereafiter, he was promoted to the post of First Grade Clerk in the pay scale ofRs. 1150-1800/- on 30.07.1986. The said pay scale was subsequently revised to Rs. 4000-6000/-. Since the petitioner was not granted any regular promotion, afiter completion of 12 years of service, the petitioner was entitled to Kjamonnati in accordance with the stagnation promotion scheme. Afiter completion of 12 years of service the petitioner was granted benefit of Karamonnati vide order dated 19.09.2001 (Annexure P/3) w.e.f. 19.04.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner was entitled for grant ofbenefit ofsecond Kramonnati on completion of 24 years of service. However, in the meantime, the respondents have V. 5. amended the earlier Kramonnati policy by reducing the service period of 12 years and 24 years to 10 years and 20 years respectively which is evident from the order dated 28.04.2008 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities that the petitioner had completed 10 years 6f service after the first Kjamonnati Was granted, the petitioner is eligible for grant of second Kramonnati w.e.f. 1st April, 2006. The petitioner was accordingly granted the benefit of second Kramonnati vide order dated 09.07.2009 w.e.f. 1st April, 2006. The said sanction for fixing the next higher pay scale of the petitioner, was communicated to the respondent No. 3. However, the same was not approved by the respondent No. 3. Shri Nair, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the remark of the respondent No. 3 at the top of Annexure P/5 "5000 ^v^ ^ff ^nr99 is without any rhyme or reason. The same deserves to be quashed and the respondent No. 3 may be directed to give effect to the order dated 09.07.2009 (Annexure P/l). On the other hand, Shri Bhatia, leamed Deputy Govemment Advocate appearmg for the State/respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under the memo dated 28.04.2008 (Annexure P/4) as the same is applicable to only those employees who have been appointed or promoted in the cadre where the appointment is made by direct recmitment. Having considered the riyal contentions of learned counsel for the parties, pemsal of the pleadings and documents appended thereto, memo dated 28.04.2008 (Annexure P/4) makes it clear that all the employees whether they are recmited directly and thereafter promoted or they have been selected and appointed under departmental mles^ are entitled to the benefit of memo dated 28.04.2008. It is beneficial to quote para 3 and 4 of memo dated 28.04.2008 (Annexure P/4) which reads as under: "3. ^ff ^rhjFTT ^ sr'H^fn RiRd ^^T ^ I^FT ^wif ^' ^Nt ^f ^dt t. -OT^" "3T" TTSTT "^" ^f ^ ^T^cT ^^T3lT C^ ^({<1^T ^t ^TlTfd^ ^d-i^l-l ^T ^TPT ^^T ^" Pl^Rxl ^ XT?TTRT 8 ^f ^t ^T ^ralSr x{uf ^f^ TR H8TT "^" q7f ^t f^ri^r ^^T ^ ^i^^iiY ^t ^^T •^' Pi^Rxi ^ TT^TKT 10 ^ ^t ^TT 3>T^T X|uf ^t"^ TT^ ^dMdAI ?hT l "^iNt 'trdT ^ 1rc¥/^T ^' l^^r9 ^ m^rf R^ii^n^ 't^ff I^RR ^ 3T^TR ^ftcft 'q^ff ^ p|t|[Rd ^7f ^' tl<Tl<^d ^f ^R dt^? ^^T 3TratiT ^ 'HTKTTT ^ R-+i|<n^ 'FRff f^PER ^ ST^HK TRpr/H^Plt^ft ^NtCT sTRT. ^^ft ^rftf^r Ra^i4n^ ~^F[ ^tsn SKT f^re^' wft f^TFT ^ 4?4^11^ ^TTPRT ^gt ^ra^ t STSRTT ^f^Tff^T 4c;1wlRl ^RT Pl^ftd ^ 11 4. ^r ^t^RT ^ sr^pfer PitifRd ?Rrf ^ sreft^r ^d^cid^ ^d-i^i-i ^t 1En^rar ^FT ^ii^<tft<y ^^cFf ^t tft ^tTft f^Fi' ^TR'f^ Pkl^(^d c^ XT^ ^ T^f)^ ^ STSRTT ^ ^ srf^ 4<t1-rlRl ^T cTPT irT<T ^t ^^T t F9 The State Govemment subsequently, by memo dated 10.08.2009 (Annexure P/6), filed by the petitioner, alongwith rejoinder, makes it clear in column No. 2 that other employees who are appointed on promotion under the departmental rules are entitled to the same benefit as granted to the employees who are directly recmited on the post or promoted thereafter. Law is well settled that ifa person has been either promoted on the basis of direct recmitment or through any departmental promotion, his period for the purpose ofcounting 10 years and 20 years shall be counted from the date the employee joins on the promoted post and continues on the \ /'' same post for a period of 10 years or 20 years, as the case may be. In the present case, the petitioner was granted the benefit of stagnation promotion scheme on completion of 12 years. Thereafter, the second benefit of stagnation promotion scheme was granted on 09.07.2009 w.e./ 01.04.2006, the date the petitioner completed 10 years of service after grant of first benefit. But the same has been rejected by the respondent No. 3. 8. There is a difficulty in understanding the response ofthe respondents as a common retum has been filed by the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 wherein, one respondent i.e. the respondent No. 2 has granted the benefit of second Kramonnati after completion of 10 years but the respondent No. 3 5 has refased the same by writing "5000 ffT(<r 7T^¥ ?t7TT" in the note sheet (Annexure P/5) without assigning any reason. 9. Shri Nair relies on a decision ofthe Supreme Court, rendered in State of Tripura v. K.K.Roy1, and judgment and order dated 29.08.2006, passed by this Court in R.S.Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others2, wherein the question for granting benefit of Kramonnati was under consideration. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: '7. We are, thus, of the opinion that the respondent herein is at least entitled to grant oft\vo higher grades, one upon expiry oftheperiodofl2yearsfrom the date ofhis joining ofthe service and other upon expiry of24 years thereof.f) 12004AIRSCW1 2W.P.No.2805of2002 ^ ^"^ • j Y, ^/' '^^^^' ^ 11. Leamed counsel for the State/respondents submits that the decision in the matter of K.K.Roy (supra) and RXVerma (supra) are on the same pomt. 12. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment is applicable to the facts ofthe instant case even though, in the aforesaidjudgment^thepetitioner was granted higher grade on expiry of 12 years and 24 years, in the instant case, since the period for consideration of grant of Kramonnati has been amended to 10 years and 20 years vide memo dated 28.04.2008 (Annexure P/4). 13. In view ofthe foregoing and for the reasons stated bereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from this order. 14. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ^H»W^ Amit