Judgment: Sujoy Paul, J.;— 1. Since similar questions of facts and law are involved in these matters, with the consent of parties, matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order. In these cases, the petitioners became entitled to get benefit of second kramonnati from different dates of 2005. For the reasons which are solely attributable to the respondents, the D.P.C., Screening Committee etc. were not done before 2008. In the year 2008, the respondents found that the petitioners were not given any promotion within 24 years and, therefore, by order dated 7.1.2008, granted them second kramonnati w.e.f. different dates of 2005. However, before this order could be implemented, the petitioners were found eligible for promotion and were directed to be promoted on the post of Lecturer from different dates of 2007. The kramonnati benefits directed to be granted from 2005 were not actually extended in favour of the petitioners. The singular ground and reason for not extending the same is that the petitioners were promoted in the year 2007 and did not join the promotional post. 2. Mrs. Pachori, learned Dy. G.A. submits that as per the stipulation in the kramonnati Yojna itself, if an employee is given promotion and he refuses to join the promotional post, the benefit of kramonnati cannot be granted in his favour. 3. Shri Sharma submits that the petitioners became entitled to get second kramonnati w.e.f. 2005 and were given promotion in 2007 and, therefore, if promotional opportunity is not granted within 24 years, any subsequent opportunity cannot take away prior benefit which accrued in 2005. 4. I have bestowed my anxious consideration on the rival contentions advanced at Bar by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The benefit of financial up-gradation is introduced with clear understanding that if an employee is stagnating for stipulated years (12 and 24 in Government of M.P.), he will be given first and second financial up-gradations after 12 and 24 years of service. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioners were given promotional avenue/chance and did not join on the said post and, therefore, cannot be said to be stagnating and, therefore, kramonnati benefits cannot be granted to him. 6. In my opinion, the said contention is mis-conceived. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioners were given promotional avenue/chance and did not join on the said post and, therefore, cannot be said to be stagnating and, therefore, kramonnati benefits cannot be granted to him. 6. In my opinion, the said contention is mis-conceived. What is relevant is whether such promotional chance is given to the petitioners within the stipulated time i.e., 12 and 24 years of service. The respondents have delayed the consideration of petitioners for kramonnati and when considered, decided to grant it from 2005, the date when petitioners completed 24 years of service. However, in routine, petitioners became eligible for promotion in the year 2007. The crucial date is the date when petitioners completed 24 years of service for the purpose of determining eligibility and entitlement under the kramonnati Scheme. Admittedly, petitioners were not considered or granted promotion till 2005. Thus, any subsequent promotion, by any stretch of imagination, can take away the right of consideration of kramonnati benefit w.e.f. 2005. This view was also taken by Division Bench in 2010(2) M.P.H.T. 163 (Lokendra Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. and another). In the light of aforesaid analysis, in my opinion, the respondents have erred in denying the kramonnati benefits granted in 2005 on the basis of subsequent promotion of 2007. Resultantly, the said action of the department is disapproved. The petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to grant and extend the benefit of kramonnati scale with all consequential benefits to the petitioners from the date of their entitlement as per Annexure P-4. No cost.