Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 776 (MP)

Shiv Charan Chauhan v. Union of India

2006-06-26

P.K.JAISWAL

body2006
Judgment ( 1. ) HEARD on I. A. No. 13694/05, an application for taking rejoinder on record. ( 2. ) APPLICATION is allowed. ( 3. ) REJOINDER filed by the petitioner is taken on record. ( 4. ) THE petitioner in this petition is challenging the order dated 23-9-2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby the representation of the petitioner for change of allocation from the successor State of Chhattisgarh to successor State of M. P. has been rejected and as per final allocation order (Annexure P-2) the petitioner has been finally allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. ( 5. ) THE petitioner is permanent r/o Gwalior and is working in the department of respondent No. 5 on the post of Steno Typist at Gwalior on the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/ -. ( 6. ) JUST before the re-organisation of State of Chhattisgarh the options were invited from the employees. Petitioner gave his option for serving in the State of M. P. After re-organisation of the State the petitioner was sent and provisionally allocated to Chhattisgarh State under Section 68 (1) of M. P. Re-organisation Act, 2000. The petitioner in compliance to the said order had joined in the State of Chhattisgarh and started working as a Steno Typist. The Director of respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 27-1-2001 (Annexure P-l) gave his willingness for taking the petitioner back in the State of M. P. The Director, Employees State Insurance Services, Chhattisgarh vide order dated 27-9-2002 (Annexure P-12) agreed for sending the petitioner to the State of M. P. and relieved him from the State of Chhattisgarh. Since then, the petitioner is working at Gwalior. As per Section 68 of Re-organisation Act, the Central Government shall by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be finally allocated for service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect. As per Sub-section (3) of Section 68 every employee who is finally allocated under the provisions of Sub-section (2) to a successor State shall, if he is not already serving therein be made available for serving in the successor State from such date as may be agreed upon between the Government concerned or in default of such agreement, as may be determined by Central Government. Under Section 71 of the Act the Central Government is empowered to decide the representation through Advisory Committee. The employees have been given a statutory right for proper consideration of the representations. Duties have been cast on the Central Government to consider the grievance of the employees fairly and properly. ( 7. ) AS per final allocation list, Annexure P-2, the services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner challenged the said action by filing an application before the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Gwalior. After abolition of State Administrative Tribunal the matter is transferred to this Court for adjudication. The matter was listed before the Lok Adalat on 21-2-2004. The parties and their learned Counsel agreed that the case was squarely covered by order of this Court in W. P. No. 2156/2003 and agreed that similar directions be issued. This Court with the consent of the parties directed the petitioner to file fresh representation before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 after receiving the comments from the concerning department, was to decide the representation and to constitute Advisory Committee in accordance with the provisions of Section 71 of the Act. It was also directed by this Court that the employees who have joined from successor State shall continue in the same State. Those employees who were not relieved or were permitted to rejoin or continue by interim order of the Tribunal or otherwise shall be permitted to continue in the State in the same cadre till the decision on the representation. The respondent No. 1 by impugned order dated 23-9-2004 rejected the representation of the petitioner for change of allocation from respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 3. As per directives issued by the respondent No. 1, 26. 23% employees in each cadre were required to be allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and total strength of the cadre of the petitioner is six. Out of total strength of the cadre of Steno Typist one has to be finally allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh under Cadre A-4, Le. , junior most in the cadre. ( 8. ) THE State Re-organisation Cell under Section 71 framed a policy dated 22-3-2001 for allocation of the employee between the successor States of M. P. and Chhattisgarh under the provisions of Re-organisation Act, 2000. , junior most in the cadre. ( 8. ) THE State Re-organisation Cell under Section 71 framed a policy dated 22-3-2001 for allocation of the employee between the successor States of M. P. and Chhattisgarh under the provisions of Re-organisation Act, 2000. As per decision of the State Advisory Committee the above policy dated 22-3-2001 (Annexure P-6) has been framed. Clause I of policy is in regard to the principle of allocation of Government Officers and office employees. Clause 6 of the policy deals with allocation of the employees on the basis of their juniority. Clause 6 of Annexure P-6, dated 22-3-2001 reads as under:. . (Vernacular Matter Omitted ). . ( 9. ) FROM the perusal of Sub-clauses (3) and (4) of Clause 6 itself, it is very specific that the persons who have been granted benefit of Kramonnati, their list shall be prepared separately and while making allocation, it has been further directed that in case, if in any particular cadre, there are more than one pay scales, then in that case, the employee who have been granted Kramonnati on their pay scale who are working with same post, their list shall be prepared separately for their allocation. ( 10. ) IT is not in dispute that in the cadre of Steno Typist in which the petitioner is working the total number of post is six which is evident from Annexure P-2. They are V. K. Raoka, Shabuddin Mansuri, Laxman Nagariya, Gansyam Sharma, Jagdish Prasad Soni and Shivcharan (petitioner ). The State Government vide order dated 30-9-2000 granted benefit of "kramonnati" in the next cadre to the four Steno Typist namely, V. K. Raoka, Shabuddin Mansuri, Laxman Nagariya and Gansyam Sharma in the cadre of Rs. 3500-5200/ -. The said benefit of Kramonnati has been granted to the above four persons with effect from 19-4-1999, vide Annexure P-3, dated 30-9-2000. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per Clause 6 (4) of the policy, the above four persons who were granted benefit of "kramonnati" in the case of higher pay scale were required to be dealt with separately considering their cases for final allocation because their pay scale is Rs. 3500-5200 whereas pay scale of the petitioner is Rs. 3050-4590. 3500-5200 whereas pay scale of the petitioner is Rs. 3050-4590. It is further contended that as per Clause 6 (6) of the policy dated 22-3-2001, persons who have been granted benefit of Kraraonnati, their list shall be prepared separately treating them as a separate cadre of employee for their allocation. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 contrary to Clause 6 (6) of the guidelines prepared a composite list of above four persons alongwith petitioner and allocated the services of the petitioner on the ground that he was junior most employee in the said cadre of Steno Typist. Whereas, if the separate list of above persons is prepared, then the petitioner cannot be sent and allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh because after deduction of the name of above four persons, only two Steno Typist will remain in the cadre of the petitioner and in that cases, none of these two Steno Typist can be allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and if allocated, then it will amount to 50% allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh, which is more than 26. 23%, which is not permissible under the law. ( 11. ) THE respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in their return averred that in all six sanctioned posts of Steno Typist were available and as per guidelines dated 22-3-2001 framed for allocation, applying the ratio of 26. 23% of the total strength of the cadre, one Steno Typist was required to be allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and out of 6 Steno Typist admittedly the petitioner is the junior most and he has been allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh under A-4 category. ( 12. ) AS per Annexure R-l, the gradation list issued on 26-6-2000, the petitioner was shown as junior most in the cadre, and therefore, allocation has to be made according to the provisions of the Rules made in relation to the matter of the allocation and the averments as made by the petitioner that the four persons who have been extended the benefit of "kramonnati" should have been separated and on such separation the petitioner could not have been allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh, is devoid of substance because the junior most employee in the cadre is required to be allocated. Formation of separate group of four employees getting the "kramonnati" pay scale is of no consequence. Formation of separate group of four employees getting the "kramonnati" pay scale is of no consequence. According to Clause 6 of the policy dated 22-3-2001, Annexure P-6, the junior most persons is to be allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and as per explanation given in Sub-clause (5) of the Clause 6 even in the cases of extending the benefit of "kramonnati" pay scale the cut-off date is 23-9-2000, whereas the benefit of Kramonnati pay scale has been extended to the four persons on 30-9-2000 (Annexure P-3), i. e. , after the cut-off date, dated 23-9-2000 mentioned in the explanation. It is averred that as per Annexure P-6, the junior most person in the cadre is required to be allocated in the State of Chhattisgarh under A-4 category and there are six persons in the cadre of Steno Typist and applying the ratio related to allocation one person is required to be allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and petitioner being the junior most person has rightly been allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. ( 13. ) THERE is a fallacy in the aforesaid arguments since Clause 6 (5) has not taken into account. The junior most employee in the cadre is required to be allocated, formation of the separate group of four employees getting the Kramonnati pay scale is of no consequence according to Clause 6 of the policy dated 22/3/2001 (Annexure P-6 ). The junior most person is to be allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh as per explanation given in Sub-clause (5) of Clause 6 even in the case of extending the benefit of Kramonnati pay scale the cut-off date is fixed 23/9/2000, whereas the four persons who have been alleged to be extended the benefit of Kramonnati pay scale has been extended on 30/9/2000, i. e. , after the date mentioned in explanation as such the contention advanced that different group should have been formed with respect to the employees who were extended the benefit of Kramonnati pay scale is not justified. The benefit of Kramonnati is not promotion and even after extending the benefit the four persons who were extended the benefit substantively is holding the post of Steno Typist in the same cadre and the allocation made on the basis of the same is just and proper. ( 14. The benefit of Kramonnati is not promotion and even after extending the benefit the four persons who were extended the benefit substantively is holding the post of Steno Typist in the same cadre and the allocation made on the basis of the same is just and proper. ( 14. ) THERE is no violation of Clause 6 of the guidelines/policy dated 22/3/2001, Annexure P-6 framed by the State Government. The petitioner is rightly allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and there is no violation of any of the conditions of the policy dated 22/3/2001, Annexure P-6. The respondent No. 1 after taking into consideration, the relevant facts and the policy and the reply filed by the respondents to the representation of the petitioner the Central Government rightly rejected the application by impugned order dated 23/9/2004. The respondent No. 1, after careful examining the representations and comments of the State Government found that the final allocation order was made allocating the petitioner to the State of Chhattisgarh was in consonance with the policy dated 22/3/2001 and, therefore, respondent No. 1 held that allocation of the petitioner cannot be changed from State of Chhattisgarh to State of M. P. as the same has been done following the directions issued by dated 22/3/2001. ( 15. ) IN view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in this petition and the contentions advanced by the petitioner are not tenable, hence this petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.