Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 554 (MP)

Chandraprakash s/o Samesingh v. State of M. P.

2017-04-26

VIVEK RUSIA

body2017
ORDER : Shri G.K. Patidar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has filed this present petition seeking directions to the respondents to pay benefit of pay grade of Rs. 2500/-, release of pending arrears and return the amount of 31,151/- which was deducted from his pension. 2. The petitioner was appointed as constable on 21-10-1976, thereafter, he was promoted to the post of head constable in the year 1985 and thereafter, in the year 2004, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. After attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired on 28-2-2011. After retirement, when the pension papers were prepared, the respondent deducted the amount of Rs. 31,151/- from his pension. 3. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for grant of pay grade of Rs. 2800/- which has been given to his juniors, but the respondent has retired him by giving pay grade of Rs. 2400/-. The petitioner has also claimed the benefit of time pay scale, which has been denied to him on the ground that he has already got two promotions and one kramonnati, therefore, under the circular dated 1-4-2008, hence, he is not entitled for the said benefit. 4. After notice, the respondent has filed return submitting that the State Government has issued two clarification of circular dated 24-1-2008, and 13-11-2008. The petitioner has received two promotions in his entire service career, therefore, he is not entitled for time pay scale, which is payable to those employees, who have completed ten years of service on the same post without promotion, therefore, the respondent has rightly recovered the amount from the retiral dues of the petitioner. The petitioner has also been granted one Kramonnati after completing 12 years of service, therefore, he is not entitled for time pay scale. So far as the recovery is concerned, the same is justified in light of the judgment delivered in the case of Chandi Prasad v. Stale of Uttrakhand, reported in 2012 (4) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 495 : (2012) 8 SCC 417 . 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is an undisputed fact that in his entire service career, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of head constable and thereafter, to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. He was also granted benefit of first Kramonnati after completing 12 years of service. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is an undisputed fact that in his entire service career, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of head constable and thereafter, to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. He was also granted benefit of first Kramonnati after completing 12 years of service. The finance department has issued circular dated 24-1-2008. The State Government has decided to grant benefit of time pay scale after completing 10 years of service to members of civil services. The very object behind this circular is to give benefit of time scale pay to those employees who could not get promotion in service, because criteria for grant of time pay scale is the same which is applicable for the promotion. In Clause 13 of Circular dated 23-1-2008, it has specifically been made clear that those who forego promotion, would not be entitled to get the benefit of higher pay scale, therefore, it is clear from the circular dated 24-1-2008, that the benefit of time pay scale is being granted in lieu of promotion. 7. Vide circular dated 13-11-2009, it has been clarified that those employees who have been granted two promotions or more after initial appointment normally, they are not entitled for higher pay scale under circular dated 1-4-2008. If the only exception is that those government employees who have already got two promotions and if second promotional post is of direct appointment, then they would be entitled for time pay scale by counting his service from the said second promotion as per circular dated 24-1-2008. In the present case, second promotion to the petitioner was granted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, which is not the post of direct recruitment, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of time pay scale as per circular dated 24-1-2008. The petitioner has not challenged the circular dated 13-11-2009, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for time pay scale. The circular dated 24-1-2007 made effective w.e.f. 24-1-2008, but by that time, the petitioner has already earned two promotions in the year 1985 and 2004. 8. So far as the recovery of Rs. The petitioner has not challenged the circular dated 13-11-2009, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for time pay scale. The circular dated 24-1-2007 made effective w.e.f. 24-1-2008, but by that time, the petitioner has already earned two promotions in the year 1985 and 2004. 8. So far as the recovery of Rs. 31,151/- is concerned, the same cannot be made in view of the law laid down in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in 2014 MPLJ Online (S.C.) 6 : (2015) 4 SCC 334 , because the petitioner was not at fault in taking benefit of time pay scale. 9. In view of the above, present writ petition is partly allowed. C.C. as per rules.