Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 447 (MP)

S. C. Dubey v. State of M. P.

2005-03-28

N.K.MODY

body2005
JUDGMENT In the present petition the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P-1 dated 22.7.2004, whereby the pay of the petitioner has been fixed after promotion and it has been directed to recover a sum of Rs. 6,500/-, an amount of difference of pay paid in excess to the petitioner. Facts of the case are that initially petitioner was working on the post of Asstt. Grade-II. He was granted the benefit of Kramonnati of Rs. 125/per month vide order dated 4.4.2000 in the pay scale A Rs. 4500-6000 with effect from 19.4.1999, which was continued till his superannuation. Last pay of the petitioner was Rs, 6,500/-. Vide order dated 29.1.2003, petitioner was promoted and posted as Asstt. Superintendent, Khandwa. Vide order dated 17.2.2003, the order of promotion was modified and instead of Asstt. Superintendent, Khandwa the petitioner was posted as Revenue Auditor. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was drawing the salary of Rs. 6,500/- in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000. Vide order dated 27.7.2004, Respondent No.2 has fixed the pay of Rs. 6,250/instead of Rs. 6.500/-. In pursuance to the order dated 22.7.2004, the amount of gratuity has also been calculated and pension has also been recalculated. The order in this regard is Annexure-P-2. The case of the petitioner is that prior to the promotion, the petitioner was getting 6,500/ - per month and after promotion the petitioner is getting 6,125/-. It is submitted that the impugned order is illegal as the higher pay scale was given to the petitioner under the scheme of Kramonnati and not on the basis of the mis-representation made by the petitioner. Learned counsel placed reliance on decision reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 , Shymn Babu Vermal and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "the benefit of Higher Pay Scale given to an employee due to no fault of him, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to him." Reply has been filed. Alongwith the reply, the copy of Kramonnati Scheme dated 17.3.1999 has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that as per Kramonnati Scheme a policy decision was taken by the State Government that every regular employee/officer is entitled for two higher pay scales under the Scheme. Alongwith the reply, the copy of Kramonnati Scheme dated 17.3.1999 has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that as per Kramonnati Scheme a policy decision was taken by the State Government that every regular employee/officer is entitled for two higher pay scales under the Scheme. Learned counsel submits that as per the Scheme, if any employee who has been regularly appointed and has worked continuously for a period of 12 years on one pay scale is entitled for Kramonnati in higher pay scale subject to following , conditions:- (K) if the employee has completed more than 12 years of service but less than 24 years and from the time of recruitment no benefit has been given to him in the pay scale by way of promotion/kramonnati/selection/ upgrade or by any other method. (KH) if the continuous service of concerned government employee is more than 24 years after regular service from the date of joining and he has been paid more than one higher pay scale in addition to the pay scale which was applicable at the time of his joining and which is not on account of promotion/kramonnati/selection/upgradation. (GA) For giving the benefit of Kramonnati under the Scheme, the last five years ACRs of the concerned employee shall be examined in the same manner in case of promotion it is being examined and if he is found fit then only he will be given the benefit of Kramonnati. (GH) In case of grant of Kramonnati, the salary shall be fixed in the next stage under Kramonnati Scheme, provided in future if the employee is promoted in the same pay scale then his pay shall be fixed assumi1that the concerned employee is in the earlier pay scale and the employee has not got the benefit of pay fixation of Kramonnati. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner cannot be put to his prejudice. Reliance has been placed on a decision of Divisional Bench reported in 2001 (3) MPLJ 469 Vijaya Kothalkar v. State of M.P. and others, wherein this Court has held that, "Employee has acquired advanced increments and has been put to higher ladder of the staircase in old time scale of pay cannot be put to his prejudice while fixing his pay in revised pay-scale. His pay at higher rate cannot be either withdrawn, reduced or cannot be denied to him and he should not be brought on par with his juniors. The pay-scale has to be fixed in view of the revision of the pay scale properly and by giving due weightage to the standing of the person in the cadre." Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the pay scale of the petitioner was Rs. 4000-6000 and Kramounati pay scale was 4000-7000 and the promotion has been given to the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000, therefore, as per proviso of Clause-Gh of the scheme the pay of the petitioner has been rightly fixed. Since the Kramounati Scheme has been given under the scheme and not upon any misrepresentation made by the petitioner therefore the order Annexure-P-I, so far it relates to the recovery of certain amount are concerned is quashed in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported herein above. So far as reduction in pension and other retrial benefits are concerned, the basic purpose of giving Kramounali in pay is that, if one reason or the other the promotion could not he given to the employee for no fault of him then he should not feel frustrated. If be applying the scheme the amount which was being paid to the petitioner is to be reduced then it is the duty of the respondents to give an option to the petitioner for acceptance of the promotion. In many cases, the concerned employee may refuse for promotion, if his pay has to he reduced. Since, no option has been given to the petitioner therefore the pay of the petitioner cannot be fixed in such a manner in which the petitioner may get lesser amount than what he was getting. In the circumstance so far as fixation of pay and gratuity for the purpose of retrial benefits arc concerned, it is directed that the petitioner shall submit a representation before the competent authority within one week, who shall examine the case of the petitioner and shall pass a reasoned order within a period of two months by calculating the retrial benefits in such a manner that it should not reduce the emoluments which the petitioner was getting. With the aforesaid observation, petition is disposed of.