--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITITION NO. 2416 / 2011 (S) SMT. RAJNI W/O JITENDRA VYAS Vs. STATE OF MP & ORS., * * * * * O R D E R ( 14/3/2011) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 28/1/11 by which the benefit of 2nd Kramonnati granted to the petitioner has been withdrawn and recovery has also been ordered against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that she was appointed on 16/3/81 on the post of LDC and thereafter she was promoted as UDC on 2/5/84. The petitioner has further stated that he was promoted later on to the post of accountant on 5/7/89. The contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of the recommendations of the pay commission, the pay scale of the accountant was revised t o Rs.4,000 – 6000/- and the pay scale of the post of UDC was also revised to Rs. 4000 – 6000 and the respondents could not have passed the impugned order dt. 28/1/11 on the ground that the petitioner has received two promotions while in service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this court that the petitioner's promotion from UDC to accountant cannot be termed as a promotion for the purpose of grant of Kramonnati, keeping in --- 2 --- view the policy dt. 19/4/99 as both the posts were carrying similar pay scale. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this court the judgment delivered in the case of Prabhat s/o Raghunath Vs. State of MP & Ors., (WP No. 5941/2010 (s) decided on 1/2/2011, wherein a similar controversy has been decided by this Court. This Court in Prabhat s/o Raghunath has held as under : The petitioner before this court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 9/11/09 by which the benefit of Second Kramonnati granted to the petitioner vide order dt. 28/2/09 has been withdrawn. The contention of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 169 – 300 on 5/4/1976 and later on he was promoted to the post of Upper Division clerk in the pay scale of Rs.195 – 330 on 16/5/90. The petitioner has further stated that the pay scale of Upper Division Clerk was revised to Rs. 1200 – 2040 and the petitioner was later on promoted to the post of Accountant w.e.f. 24/12/92 in the same pay scale of Rs. 2200 – 2040. The petitioner has further stated that he was conferred with the benefit of Second Kramonnati by an order dt. 28/2/09 and the benefit of Second Kramonnati was granted to him w.e.f. 5/4/2000. The name of the petitioner finds place at Sl.No.8 of the aforesaid order. Name of one Nathulal Verma finds place at Sl.No.22 of the same order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this court that the order granting Second Kramonnati to Nathulal Verma was also withdrawn by the same impugned order --- 3 --- dt. 9/11/09 and Nathulal Verma who was also conferred the benefit of Kramonnati while working on the post of Accountant has preferred a writ petition before this Court. It has been further stated that while deciding the writ petition preferred by Nathulal Verma ie., WP NO. 5774 / 2009, this court has quashed the impugned order dt. 9/11/09. The petitioner's contention is that he is identically placed person and therefore the impugned order deserves to be quashed. A reply has been filed in the matter and the contention of the respondents is that the petitioner prior to grant of benefit under the Kramonnati Scheme was already conferred with the benefit of two promotions ie., on the post of Upper Division Clerk and on the post of Accountant and therefore his case was erroneously considered for grant of second kramonnati. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner was promoted from the post of Upper Division Clerk to the post of Accountant in the same pay scale of Rs.1200 – 2040 but was also granted a special pay of Rs.250. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 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 granted promotion from the post of UDC to Accountant. It is also an admitted fact that the pay scale of of the post of UDC was Rs.1200 – 2040 and the pay scale of Accountant was Rs. 1200 – 2040, meaning thereby, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Accountant in the same pay scale. This --- 4 --- court while deciding the case of 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 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 --- 5 --- 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 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 --- 6 --- 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 judgment delivered by this court in the case of Nathulal Verma, as the petitioner is an identically placed employee and who was also promoted from the post of UDC to Accountant in the same pay scale of Rs.1200 – 2040, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was rightly extended the benefit of second kramonnati and the cancellation of the same vide order dt. 9/11/09 is illegal and is violative of clause 2 (29) of the Kramonnati Policy dt. 19/4/1999. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dt. 9/11/09 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits flowing out of order dt. 28/2/09. With the aforesaid this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Learned Government Advocate has not disputed the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Prabhat s/o Raghunath Vs. State of MP & Ors., (WP No. 5941/2010 (s) decided on 1/2/2011. However, she has stated that a Writ Appeal is pending in the matter. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment --- 7 --- delivered by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid case and the same reflects that promotion from the post of UDC to the post of accountant was not treated as promotion for the purposes of grant of 2nd Kramonnati on completion of 24 years of service keeping in view the policy dt. 19/4/99. Resultantly, as the matter is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by this court in the case of Prabhat s/o Raghunath Vs. State of MP & Ors., (WP No. 5941/2010 (s) decided on 1/2/2011, the impugned order dt. 28/1/11 is hereby quashed and the earlier order passed by the State Government dt. 30/4/2008 is revived. The respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner by virtue of order dt. 30/4/08. This Court has already quashed the impugned order dt. 28/1/11 and therefore the respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner, if any, within 60 days and to grant him all consequential benefits within the aforesaid period. This petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR