Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 393 (MP)

Sandeep Nagar v. State of M. P.

2017-03-22

VIVEK RUSIA

body2017
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondents by which he has been denied the benefit of 1st Kramonnati/Higher Pay Scale of Rs.5200-20200/- with grade pay of Rs.2,400/- with effect from 1.4.2006. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 29.2.1996 by the Director of Kalidas Sanskrit Academy, Ujjain. Later on he was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 9.8.2000 with effect from initial date of appointment i.e. 1.3.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted in Kalidas Sanskrit Academy, Ujjain. Since the petitioner was not promoted for the period 19 years since his appointment, therefore, he filed petition claiming the benefit of Kramonnati in the light of Circular dated 24.1.2008. 3. The State Government has framed the policy regarding Time Bound Promotion Scheme for granting the benefit of Higher Pay Scale to those employees who had completed 8/10 years of service from the date of initial appointment but could not get promotion due to some reasons. The State Government has fixed the cut off date for granting the said benefit is 1.4.2006. 4. The Departmental Promotion Committee of the respondents met on 28.8.2012 for considering the case of eligible employee for granting the benefit of 1st Kramonnati/up-gradation. The name of the petitioner was also considered along with 39 employees. The DPC has considered the ACRs of 1.4.2009 up to 31.3.2012. Since the petitioner's ACRs were adverse during aforesaid period, and show cause notice was also issued for awarding punishment of stoppage of 2 increments, the DPC did not recommend the name of the petitioner for grant of 1st Kramonnati. 5. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents mainly on the two grounds that the respondents have wrongly considered the ACRs of the years 2009 to 2012 of the petitioner and even though those adverse ACRs has never been communicated to him, therefore, they cannot be considered for denying the benefit of the up-gradation to the petitioner. 6. The respondents filed the return in which it is submitted that the DPC is liable to be considered the ACRs of the preceding 5 years and since the petitioner's ACRs were not up to the mark, therefore, his name was not recommended. 6. The respondents filed the return in which it is submitted that the DPC is liable to be considered the ACRs of the preceding 5 years and since the petitioner's ACRs were not up to the mark, therefore, his name was not recommended. It is submitted that the ACRs of the petitioner were communicated to him vide letter dated 27.6.2011 and received by the petitioner on 10.10.2011 hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The State Government has framed the policy dated 24.1.2008 for granting benefit of Higher Pay Scale to their employees of category A, B and C after completing 8 years and 10 years of service respectively. The scheme was made effective w.e.f. 1.4.2006. The criteria for grant of the said benefit was same as the criteria for promotion. In clauses 9 and 10, it has been mentioned that the employees whose service of 8 years completed as on 1.4.2006 would be considered for grant of benefit w.e.f. 1.4.2006 and those employees who had completed more than 8 years service than the said extra period would be counted for granting 2nd Kramonnati. Clauses 9 and 10 are reproduced below:- ^^9- fnukad 1-4-2006 dks ;fn mPprj osrueku dh ik=rk ds fy, fu/kkZfjr lsok vof/k vFkok mlls vf/kd lsok vof/k iw.kZ gks pqdh gS rks izFke mPPkrj osrueku dh ik=rk fnukad 1-4-2006 ls gksxhA fnukad 1-4-2006 dks ;fn f}rh; mPPkrj osrueku ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr lsok vof/k iw.kZ dj yh xbZ gS rks mls lh/ks f}rh; mPPkrj osrueku dh ik=rk gksxhA 10- ;fn fdlh 'kkldh; lsod dh fnukad 1-4-2006 dks izFke mPprj osrueku ds fy, fu/kkZfjr lsok vof/k ls vf/kd lsok vof/k gS rks vf/kd lsok vofèk f}rh; mPPkrj osrueku dh ik=rk ds fy, x.kuk esa yh tk,xhA mnkgj.kkFkZ] ;fn izFke mPPkrj osrueku ds fy, 8 o"kZ dh lsok vof/k fu/kkZfjr gS vkSj fnukad 1-4-2006 dks mldh dqy lsok vof/k 12 o"kZ iw.kZ gks pqdh gS rks 'ks"k 4 o"kZ dh vof/k f}rh; mPprj osrueku gsrq x.kuk esa yh tk,xh vFkkZr~ ftl Hkh fnukad dks mldh lsok vof/k 16 o"kZ gks tkrh gS ml fnukad ls mls f}rh; mPPkrj osrueku dh ik=rk gksxhA** 9. It is clear from the two clauses the benefit of Kramonnati is to be granted to those employees who had completed 8/10 years service on 1.4.2006, therefore, their service record/ACRs were liable to be considered up to 1.4.2006 not beyond that. In the present case the respondents considered the ACRs of the year 2009, 2010 and 2011 i.e. after 1.4.2006. Therefore, the action of the respondent is contrary to their own policy dated 24.1.2008. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of 1st Kramonnati considering his service record up to 1.4.2006 from the date of initial appointment. The entire exercise be completed within six weeks from production of certified copy of this order. 10. The petition is stands allowed.