ORDER 1. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, working as Senior Quality Control Assistant with the respondent No.1-department, has approached this Court against the order dated 31.3.2015 rejecting his representation filed for twofold relief namely for grant of IInd Kramonnati upon completion of 20 years of service and also for inclusion of his name in the gradation list of Senior Quality Control Assistants as on 1.4.2014. 2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this writ petition, in nutshell, are to the effect that while the petitioner was posted at Sheopur in the year 2002, his services were allocated to the State of Chhastisgarh consequent upon coming into existence of two successive States by force of M.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. Petitioner had taken exception to the order of allocation by filing a writ petition which was initially registered at Gwalior Bench as Writ Petition No.1231/2002 but was later on transferred to the Principal Seat at Jabalpur and registered as Writ Petition No.5806/2002. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.10.2003 in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No.21562/2003, wherein petitioner was set at liberty to file a representation against the order of allocation. It appears that the petitioner had filed a representation, but the same was rejected by the order dated 28.9.2006. Petitioner again challenged the aforesaid order in Writ Petition No.14710/06. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 13.10.2006 and the order dated 28.9.2006 was quashed. The operative part of the said order reads as under :- “6. In view of this, petition is allowed. The impugned order of allocation dated 28.9.2006 (Annexure P-1) and consequent relieving orders are quashed with the further direction to the Central Government to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner. The decision of Central Government will be given effect after 15 days from the date of communication of the order to the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved with the order, he will be free to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the grievance. Till the representation is decided, the impugned allocation order passed by the Government of India, the relieving order issued by the State Government of M.P. and the impugned Chhatisgarh allocation order passed in the year 2002 of which the operation has already been stayed by this Court shall be kept in abeyance.” 3. Till the representation is decided, the impugned allocation order passed by the Government of India, the relieving order issued by the State Government of M.P. and the impugned Chhatisgarh allocation order passed in the year 2002 of which the operation has already been stayed by this Court shall be kept in abeyance.” 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, petitioner has filed a representation on 4.11.2006 before the concerned authority of the Central Government and, undisputedly, the same is pending consideration. 4. Petitioner's representation for the relief claimed, as aforesaid, has been turned down by the impugned order dated 31.3.2015 wherein while rejecting the claim, the Authorities were of the view that as the original order of allocation of the year 2002 still subsists and has only been kept in abeyance, therefore, petitioner's claim for Kramonnati and for inclusion of his name in the gradation list of the post of Senior Quality Control Assistant cannot be acceded to. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, taking exception to the aforesaid order, submits that the concept of extension of monetary benefit known as Kramonnati is primarily to compensate the employees who have though completed requisite years of service, but are not promoted to higher post. Hence, the criterion for extension of benefit of Kramonnati is the actual length of service rendered by an employee. According to him, admittedly, the petitioner has completed 20 years of continuous service on the said post of respondent No.1-department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Central Government has not passed any order on his pending representation. As such, petitioner continues to be on the strength of State Government of Madhya Pradesh. Under these circumstances, benefit accrued to the petitioner by virtue of completion of requisite years of service on the post of Senior Quality Control Assistant, cannot be denied under the pretext that original order of allocation of 2002 has not been quashed and is kept in abeyance in terms of the order dated 13.10.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.14710/2006. Learned counsel contends that petitioner's services are being utilized in the State of Madhya Pradesh and he is under the administrative and financial control of the State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the monetary claim by way of Kramonnati cannot be denied by the State Government. 6. Learned counsel contends that petitioner's services are being utilized in the State of Madhya Pradesh and he is under the administrative and financial control of the State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the monetary claim by way of Kramonnati cannot be denied by the State Government. 6. As regards, placement in the gradation list of Senior Quality Control Assistants, learned counsel for the petitioner has made almost similar submissions and contended that petitioner continues to hold the lien on the said post in the respondent No.1-department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Unless the lien is terminated, he is entitled to be shown in the gradation list of the Senior Quality Control Assistants maintained by the respondent No.1-department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. 7. Per contra Shri Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the respondents contends that respondents have taken the decision by passing the impugned order on the strength of the Circular issued by the General Administration Department (State Reorganization Cell) dated 27/707 which reads as under :- ^^mijksDr lanfHkZr i= ds laca/k esa ys[k gS fd e/;izns'k os;j gkmflax dkiksZjs'ku ds vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa ds vafre jkT; vkcaVu ds fo:+) nk;j ;kfpdk pwafd U;k;ky; }kjk Hkkjr ljdkj ds vkns'k fnukad 28-9-2006 dks Quash dj abeyance esa j[kk tks dj ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vH;kosnu dk fujkdj.k fd;s tkus gsrq Hkkjr ljdkj dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vr% bl ifjizs{; esa Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk vH;kosnu fujkd`r dj vkns'k tkjh djus ij ,sls vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dk uke gh e/;izns'k ds ofj;rk lwph esa jgsxk ftudk vafre vkcaVu U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds ifjizs{; eas Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; esa e/;izns'k vkcafVr gksaxsA oLrqfLFkfr ls d`i;k voxr gksuk pkgsaxsA** 8. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that in view of the fact that the original order of allocation still continues to exist, petitioner cannot be treated to be an employee of the State of Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, neither he can be extended the benefit of Kramonnati, nor his name can be shown in the gradation list of Senior Quality Control Assistants maintained by the State of Madhya Pradesh. 9. Heard, counsel for the parties. 10. There is no dispute about continuance of the petitioner on the post of Senior Quality Control Assistant in the respondent No.1-department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. 9. Heard, counsel for the parties. 10. There is no dispute about continuance of the petitioner on the post of Senior Quality Control Assistant in the respondent No.1-department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. There is also no dispute to the facts that his lien is maintained in the State of Madhya Pradesh, regular salary is being paid and administrative and financial control is that of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Petitioner has completed more than 20 years of service making him entitled to grant of Kramonnati. The circular regulating the benefit of Kramonnati requires completion of requisite years of service on a given post. True it is that original order of allocation passed in the year 2002 subsists, but one cannot lose sight of the fact that the order rejecting the representation against the allocation order of the year 2002 passed on 28.9.2006, has been quashed by this Court with further direction to the petitioner to file a representation, in pursuance of which representation has been filed by the petitioner on 4.11.2006 before the Central Government. The same is pending consideration and the Central Government has not taken any decision so far though more than 10 years period has passed by. Under these circumstances, the benefit of Kramonnati, otherwise admissible to the petitioner, cannot be stalled for the reason that the Central Government has not passed any order so far in the context of original order of allocation of the year 2002. 11. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the claim of the petitioner for Kramonnati, for the aforesaid reasons, cannot be denied. Petitioner is held entitled for the benefit of second Kramonnati. 12. Further, as the lien of the petitioner on the post of Senior Quality Control Assistants continues in the State of Madhya Pradesh, till the order of allocation attains finality, petitioner is entitled to get all service benefits accrued to him and consequently he is also held entitled to be placed in the gradation list of Senior Quality Control Assistants maintained by the respondent No.1-department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. 13. In the result, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Alok Sharma for petitioner; B. S. Bhadoriya for respondents.