HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WR!T PETITiON N0.30S2 OF 2003 PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS Ram Janam Pandey, son of tate Harinath Pandey, Head Master, 60 years, Middle School, Chougal Block, Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker (Chhattisgarh). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of the Scheduled Tribe,Scheduled Caste, Other Backward Class and Other Minoritles Communities Welfare Department, DK.S. Bhawan, Raipur{Chhattisgarh). 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Department of Tribal Weifare, Kanker, Distt. Kanker (CG). 3. Collector, Dlstt. Kanker (CG). 4. Block Education Officer, Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker (Chhaffisgarh). (W/rit petition under Articte 226/227 ofthe ConstiSution of India) Single Bench: Hon'bleShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Smt. Fouzia Mirza, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on this 31st day of Ju!y, 200S) With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the petltion is heardfinaliy. 2) !n this petition, the petitioner daims grant of second Kramonnati after completion of period of 12 years of service. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Headmaster and posted at Purva Madhyamik Shala, Amabeda on 1-1-1980 by the Distrtet Organizer (Annexure-P/3). Thereafter, the petitioner has completed 12 years of service without anyfurther promotion. Thus, as per the policy ofthe State Government the petitioner is entitied to grant of second Kramonnati. Learned counse! appearing for the peti|tioner submite thaf the respondent authorities may be directed to pay revi^ pay scate to the petitioner w.e.f. 1-1-1993 on completion of 12 years of sfervice as per the cireular dated 10-6-2002 (Annexure-P/1). 3) Psr contra, learned counsel appearing fbr the State/resp<|t|<tentei submits that the petitioner is entitled to grant of Kramonnati afj^ri thej IBi •^- petitioner is found fit for promotion. The concept of grant of Kramonnati is on!y to grant retief to the employees who are found fit for promotion, but cannot be promoted Qn account of non-avajlabitity of vacancy or any other reason. Cireutar dated 17-3-19^/19-4-1999 makes it dear that if the smplcsvee is found fit for proniotion, in that event alone the empioyee can be granted Kramonnati. To the same effect, the circuiar dated 10-6-2002 alsotesued. 4) i have heard leamed counse! appearing for the parttes, perused the pteadings and the documente appended thereto, The circular dated 17-3-1999/19-4-1M9 was considered by this Court in the matter of Smt. Vjjay Laxmi Yadu vs. The State ofChhattisgarh & Others (W.P.(S) No.2020/2007), decided pn ^h j^iril, 2008, wherein it was he!d that the emptoyee is entiUed to grant of Kramonnati oniyjn the event the employee tefoundfitforpromotion. Cireuiardated 10-6-2002 readsas under: ^ R^aiT ^ »ras4 ^; w <6 ft^?T ^. 1/1/^3(T-g/1999 f 3/2000/17/5/2000 4' VK R>W 1TOt 6 R; fSf-r R'lprt ^ *l(ff R<i»iT ^ aid'fii W^ <bti!"lRl Ad'ilW <CT STWT'T TTg^ ;ft t 'S^S "rff PwiT ^ aitfrfff CTP^ <t>ll1"lR! ^c)'"tH 'St irratTT tyI-^-HM ^ft crarr ^raft •CT^-ifir nyma "2. •Sd-lll') Wfn^T ft'WT ^ \i4'A<tlT sTPR 17/3/99-19/4/1983 ^ tnrfScT ^ ?Wi . 3. ^pT ftlgll R'*!ill ^ SRTiftT ^rf'RT RlgW Wfflf <Bt ^f ^ ffa<fy^5T ^lFT y'fifillT Priffl 1830 «& ai-^'HN 12 gi^ ?S ^ar yf 'gt^ TR 4Wdi ?St •TRgf^ RrRr ^ ^SIT ftwftif u^^rjRi flpjR) gm ?ftrq w4 uIT* TR q1^sg ^d^tjM ^t ^ ^f^V t RRT^ 3'^BR 5IRI-T ?9id pf^Vf ft-li* •14/4/S9 TR9fta '•T^T ^if ^t't ^ ftW^ \ %?lf4 IT^ dlRjtiff <^ ^d-<*)M W^ sN' i" || 5) Admittedly, the case of the petitloner was considered and he iwas not found fit for premotion. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to gr&nt of second Kramonnatl. ' 6) This petition beingdeypid ofmerit is liabte te be djsmjsse^t accordingly, it is dismissed. and satish'K; Sd^