JUDGMENT : The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that despite the grant of Kramonnati, the petitioner is not extended the benefit of the same inasmuch as his salary has not been revised in the Kramonnati pay scale and that the second Kramonnati, as was available to him, has not been extended. Despite making representations since the same were not considered, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to be filed. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that initially he was appointed on the post of Coup Guard in the Forest Department of Govt. of Madhya Pradesh on 13-10-1976. Later on he was regularised w.e.f. 1-1-1977 on the post of Forest Guard. The order in this respect was issued and later on the petitioner was given the forest training and was regularised w.e.f. 1-4-1981 as trained Forest Guard. The State Government has formulated a policy commonly known as Kramonnati Yojna and circulated the same vide circular dated 17-3-1999/19-4-1999. However, despite rendering the services for a period of 12 years on the very same post in the very same pay scale, the benefit of Kramonnati was not extended to the petitioner. There was discrepancy in maintaining the seniority of the petitioner and he was lowered down in the seniority list against which the representation was made by the petitioner. It is contended that instead of considering the representation of the petitioner in appropriate manner, it was communicated that the petitioner has been treated as Forest Guard w.e.f. 1-4-1986 and this is how the petitioner's seniority was changed. Further, there was no cogent reason shown as to how the seniority of the petitioner was changed because of change of his date of regularisation. This being so, the petitioner has claimed the relief to the effect that the respondents be commanded to correct the seniority of the petitioner in appropriate manner and to grant him first Kramonnati w.e.f. 1-1-1989 and second Kramonnati w.e.f. 1-1-2001 and to pay him all the consequential benefits after revision of his pay with interest. 3. Upon notices of the writ petition, the respondents have filed the return and they have contended that the case of the petitioner was considered for regularisation. On availability of the post of Forest Guard, the petitioner was treated to be regularised w.e.f. 1-4-1986. 3. Upon notices of the writ petition, the respondents have filed the return and they have contended that the case of the petitioner was considered for regularisation. On availability of the post of Forest Guard, the petitioner was treated to be regularised w.e.f. 1-4-1986. The period spent by the petitioner in service as Coup Guard was not to be counted for the purposes of seniority and accordingly, from the date of regularisation, the seniority of the petitioner was properly maintained and he has been shown in the appropriate place in the gradation seniority list. It is contended that the benefit of Kramonnati was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 11-3-2008 and the said benefit is extended w.e.f. 19-4-1999 in terms of the scheme made by the State Government. The petitioner would be paid the benefit of grant of first Kramonnati. Nothing more can be granted to the petitioner and as such the petition is misconceived and deserve dismissal. 4. By filing a rejoinder, the petitioner has contended that in terms of the decision taken by the State Government way back, the posts of Coup Guards were converted into the posts of Forest Guards. Those who were working as Coup Guards were directed to be treated as Forest Guards. Those who were untrained, were required to be sent for forest training. At any rate, benefit of seniority was not to be denied to the petitioner. It is contended that the similar issue was looked into by this Court in W.P. No. 9271/2008, decided on 18-7-2012 and in view of this, a direction was given to decide the claim of seniority of such persons. If that is done, it would be clear that petitioner is much above in the gradation list and would be entitled to the promotion on the next post. No additional return has been filed to controvert such a stand taken by the petitioner in the rejoinder. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and examined the record minutely. 6. As has been put forth by the petitioner by placing on record the documents to show that the State Government itself has taken a decision to declare certain temporary posts as permanent posts w.e.f. 1-3-1977 by its order dated 3-5-1977/13-5-1977 and in fact the posts of Coup Guards, one thousand in number, were made permanent. 6. As has been put forth by the petitioner by placing on record the documents to show that the State Government itself has taken a decision to declare certain temporary posts as permanent posts w.e.f. 1-3-1977 by its order dated 3-5-1977/13-5-1977 and in fact the posts of Coup Guards, one thousand in number, were made permanent. It is also clear from the other documents that instead of Coup Guards, the said posts were to be designated as Forest Guards and for that purposes the specific orders were issued on 17-12-1979. The post was not only equated in the designation but the pay scale was also prescribed. The only difference was those who were untrained, were required to be sent for training and after obtaining the training, they were to be regularised as trained Forest Guard. From the gradation list annexed with the petition, it is clear that the same was the gradation list of trained Forest Guards. It is not disputed that the petitioner was imparted training as Forest Guard and an order was issued in his respect on 8-4-1981, posting him as trained Forest Guard w.e.f. 3-4-1981. Thus, it is clear that initially the petitioner was treated as Coup Guard, he was treated to be appointed on the post of Forest Guard after the conversion of the said post in terms of the order dated 3-5-1977/13-5-1977 read with order dated 17-12-1979 and after the training, was regularised as trained Forest Guard w.e.f. 3-4-1981. Even if permanent post was not available for the petitioner, such services rendered by him as trained Forest Guard were to be counted for the purposes of fixation of his seniority. At any rate, the period spent by the petitioner as a trained Forest Guard in between 3-4-1981 to 1-4-1986 could not be excluded for the purpose of giving benefit of seniority to the petitioner. This being so, the stand taken by the respondents that on account of nonavailability of the post petitioner was not treated to be regular trained Forest Guard and for that purpose the seniority was fixed w.e.f. 1-4-1986 cannot be accepted. The seniority of the petitioner as a trained Forest Guard would be counted only and only from 3-4-1981. 7. It is not clear that any junior to the petitioner was granted promotion or not. He has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2012 and has retired w.e.f. 29-2-2012. The seniority of the petitioner as a trained Forest Guard would be counted only and only from 3-4-1981. 7. It is not clear that any junior to the petitioner was granted promotion or not. He has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2012 and has retired w.e.f. 29-2-2012. But, it would be necessary for the respondents to assign proper seniority to the petitioner from the date on which he was regularised as trained Forest Guard, i.e., 3-4-1981 and to see whether any junior to the petitioner was promoted on the next higher post or not. In case any junior to the petitioner is promoted, a review DPC be held for consideration of the claim of the petitioner for promotion and in case he is found fit for promotion, he be granted the benefit of promotion with all consequential benefits with retrospective effect. 8. Now the claim made by the petitioner with respect to grant of Kramonnati is to be considered. As is admitted by the respondents, since no promotion was granted to the petitioner, the order was issued on 11-3-2008 granting the Kramonnati to the petitioner w.e.f. 19-4-1999. This was done in terms of the policy made by the State Government on 17-3-1999/19-4-1999. The said policy makes it clear that the decision was taken by the State Government to implement the scheme of Kramonnati for those, who have not been granted any promotion after their regular appointment on a post. If they have remained continued on the said post for a period of 12 years, the first Kramonnati pay scale was to be granted to such employees. For the persons, who have not even granted the promotion even after completion of 24 years of service, they were to be granted the benefit of second Kramonnati. The scheme was made applicable from the date the amendments in terms of the policy made by the State Government were to be made in the recruitment rules of each department. It appears that no amendment was made in any of the service Rules and, therefore, by an order dated 3-5-2000/17-5-2000 the respondent-State decided that the Kramonnati scheme itself would come into force w.e.f. 19-4-1999. 9. Now, the interpretation of the scheme is required to be done. It appears that no amendment was made in any of the service Rules and, therefore, by an order dated 3-5-2000/17-5-2000 the respondent-State decided that the Kramonnati scheme itself would come into force w.e.f. 19-4-1999. 9. Now, the interpretation of the scheme is required to be done. Even if a person is appointed in the service in the year 1981, as in the case in hand, according to the scheme, he would become entitled to grant of first Kramonnati in the year 1993 and would become entitled to grant of second Kramonnati in the year 2005. However, since the scheme itself is made applicable w.e.f. 19-4-1999, how the pay fixation is to be done after grant of Kramonnati before the date of coming into force of the scheme, has not been specifically provided. The pay scales, which are to be granted on account of grant of Kramonnati have been mentioned in the circular of the State Government and in Paragraph 4 of the scheme, it is said that after grant of the pay scale as indicated in the list of pay scales, the pay would be fixed in the Kramonnati pay scale or whatever the pre-revised pay scale of the said Kramonnati pay scale prevalent at the relevant time and the salary would be fixed accordingly. It is the well-settled law that an order can be issued with retrospective effect but it is also settled law that in case a particular cut-off date is prescribed, the scheme or action would become operative only from the cut-off date. Here in the case in hand, the cut-off date prescribed by the State Government is 19-4-1999 and, therefore, even if the petitioner had completed the 12 years of service before this cut-off date, he would not be entitled to grant of first Kramonnati before this date. Of course, if he had completed the period of 24 years of service, after the regular recruitment made, without any promotion, he would be entitled to consideration of his claim for grant of second Kramonnati even if the first Kramonnati is granted w.e.f. 19-4-1999. It cannot be said that first Kramonnati is treated to be granted w.e.f. 19-4-1999 and, therefore, further 12 years of service would be necessary for grant of second Kramonnati from the date of grant of first Kramonnati. It cannot be said that first Kramonnati is treated to be granted w.e.f. 19-4-1999 and, therefore, further 12 years of service would be necessary for grant of second Kramonnati from the date of grant of first Kramonnati. In fact, the scheme of the Kramonnati itself prescribes the period of service from the initial date of appointment and not from the date of grant of first Kramonnati as the starting point from which the period of 12 years is to be counted for the purposes of grant of second Kramonnati. Thus, it is the intention of the State Government to grant at least two upgradation in the pay scales on completion of 24 years of service from the initial date of appointment and, therefore, it has to be treated that the petitioner would be entitled to grant of second Kramonnati on completion of 24 years of service. Since the petitioner is said to be appointed on regular basis as trained Forest Guard w.e.f. 3-4-1981, he would be entitled to grant of first Kramonnati w.e.f. 19-4-1999 as has rightly been done in his case and his case would be considered for grant of second Kramonnati on completion of 24 years of service from the aforesaid date of initial appointment, in the year 2005. Apparently, this has not been done and, therefore, an error has been committed by the respondents in not implementing the Kramonnati scheme in appropriate manner in respect of the petitioner. 10. It is also the settled position of law that Kramonnati in the pay scale is not to be granted automatically on completion of requisite years of service. The scheme has been made by the State Government to consider the claims for grant of such Kramonnati. The scheme contemplates that the screening of the service record is to be done and then the assessment is to be done whether an incumbent is fit for grant of Kramonnati or not. The Apex Court and this Court has also considered the aspect of grant of Kramonnati in catena of decisions and it has been categorically held that grant of Kramonnati is not automatic, on the other hand, it depends on due consideration by the Committee and only if an incumbent is found fit in accordance to the norms prescribed for grant of such Kramonnati pay scales, the benefit is required to be granted from the date it has become applicable. Thus, again it would be only a right available to the petitioner to be considered for grant of second Kramonnati and it would be necessary for the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of such Kramonnati pay scales within time. 11. For the aforesaid discussions, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents would first fix the seniority of the petitioner in appropriate manner as has been directed herein above and will examine whether any junior to the petitioner is promoted on the next higher post or not. In case, it is found that despite fixation of seniority in appropriate manner, petitioner would not be entitled to any promotion, on account of non-availability of the vacancies up to his seniority number or on account of the fact that no junior to him has been promoted on the next higher post, the respondents would consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of Kramonnati on the aforesaid two stages. So far as the first Kramonnati is concerned, it is indicated by filing return that the petitioner has already been considered and found fit for grant of such Kramonnati and orders in that respect have been issued by them on 10-3-2008. The petitioner would be entitled to grant of Kramonnati pay scale of Rs. 3500-5200 in terms of the order dated 10-3-2008, w.e.f. 19-4-1999. However, the respondents would consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of second Kramonnati in terms of the policy dated 17-3-1999/19-4-1999 with effect from the year he completed 24 years of service, taking into consideration the initial date of appointment of petitioner as trained Forest Guard w.e.f. 3-4-1981 and in case it is found that the petitioner is fit for grant of second Kramonnati, the benefit of grant of second Kramonnati would be extended to the petitioner from the appropriate date on which he has completed 24 years of service. The petitioner would be entitled to the salary in the Kramonnati pay scale as is granted and is directed to be considered herein above in the event he is found fit for grant of second Kramonnati and all the arrears of salary be calculated and paid to him. The petitioner would be entitled to the salary in the Kramonnati pay scale as is granted and is directed to be considered herein above in the event he is found fit for grant of second Kramonnati and all the arrears of salary be calculated and paid to him. Since now the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, in all the aforesaid circumstances, the pensionary claim of the petitioner be revised fixing appropriate pension of the petitioner and all the retiral dues be calculated and paid to him. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of the order and actual payments be made to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.