ORDER 1. The petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers in the School of Mahatma Gandhi Urdu Middle School, Ratlam which is receiving grant in aid from the State Government. According to the petitioners, they are entitled for the benefit of Kramonnati at par with the State Government employee. The petitioners have completed more than 24 years of service, therefore, they are entitled for first and second Kramonnati after completion of 12 and 24 years of service. The petitioners have placed reliance over the order passed in the case of Smt. Kusum Bhandari v. State of M.P. and others passed, in Writ Petition No.5272 of 2009 in which vide order dated 12.1.2017 this Court has directed the District Education Officer to examine the petitioner's case afresh in the light of the Circular dated 8.5.2015 within a period of three months from the receipt of certified copy and if the petitioners are found entitled, necessary benefits be given to them. The operative portion of the order is reproduced below :- “Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the order dated 12.1.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.5272/2009 (Smt. Kusum“Bhandari v. State of M.P. and others). This Court in the matter of Smt. Kusum Bhandari v. State of M.P. and others had passed the following order :- “This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to sanction the pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and payscale of Rs.5500-9000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and also to pay the difference of salary along with interest. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Upper Division Teacher in the pay-scale of Rs.246-460/- in the respondent No.4-School on 19.7.1973. The claim of the petitioner is that on implementation of the Central Pay Commission in the year 1999, the Teachers of the School Education Department were sanctioned the pay-scale of Rs.1,400-2,640/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and on completion of 12 years of service, senior pay-scale of Rs.1,640-2,900/- has been sanctioned to them but the petitioner has not been given the senior pay-scale. Further case of the petitioner is that on implemention of the recommendations of Fifth pay Commission, the petitioner has been given the benefit of Rs.5,000-8,000/- whereas the petitioner was entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.5,500-9,000/-. Further case of the petitioner is that on implemention of the recommendations of Fifth pay Commission, the petitioner has been given the benefit of Rs.5,000-8,000/- whereas the petitioner was entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.5,500-9,000/-. It is also the case of petitioner that other employees of the respondent No.4 have already been extended the said benefit. The stand of respondent No.4 is that requisite pay-scale has not been sanctioned by the State Government, therefore, it was not granted. A reply was filed by the respondent/State in the year 2010 taking the stand that respondent No.4 has been granted the Block grant as per the circular of the State Government dated 11.4.2002, therefore no further financial burden would be borne by the State Government and in terms of the said circular the petitioner is not entitled for the aforesaid benefit prayed in the present writ petition. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out the subsequent circular dated 8.5.2015 which reads as under:- ¼1½ lanfHkZr 'kklu vkns'k vuqlkj 1-4-2000 ds iwoZ dh fLFkfr esa fu;qDr dk;Zjr~ 'kS{kf.kd o xSj 'kS{kf.kd vey ds laca/k esa e/; izns'k v'kkldh; f'k{k.k laLFkk ÌÌ ¼v/;kidksa rFkk vU; deZpkfj;ksa ds osruksa dk lank; Ì̽ la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e] 2000 ,oa e/; izns'k v'kkldh; f'k{k.k laLFkk vuqnku fu;e] 2008 izHkko'kkhy ugha gksaxs vfirq iwoZorhZ vf/kfu;e o iquZjhf{kr vuqnku fu;e izHkkoh gksaxsA ¼2½ e/; izns'k 'kklu Ldwy f'k{kk foHkkx }kjk vizSy o"kZ 2000 ,oa mlds mijkar ofj"B osrueku] inksUufr] ØeksUufr] CykWd xzk.V ls lacaf/kr laofgr 'kklu vkns'k ifji= Hkh 1-4-2000 ds iwoZ ls fu;qDr LVkWQ ds fo"k; esa izHkko 'kwU; gksaxsA fu;e o ik=rk vuqlkj ofj"B osrueku@ØeksUufr dk ykHk bl LVkWQ dks ns; gksxkA ¼3½ vuqnku izkIr v'kkldh; f'k{k.k laLFkkvksa ds vuqnku gsrq ekU; f'k{kdksa@ depZkfj;ksa dh lsokfuo`fÙk vFkok vU; fdlh dkj.k ls in fjDr gksus dh fLFkfr esa ml in ij uohu fu;fqDr ugha dh tk,xhA mDr in vuqnku ls vekU; gksdj ns; vuqnku can dj fn;k tk,xkA In view of the aforesaid circular, the earlier circular dated 11.4.2002 ( on the basis of which the stand negating the claim of the petitioner has been taken by the State Government) is not applicable in the case of the petitioner because she was appointed prior to 1.4.2000. In view of aforesaid subsequent circular, Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for respondent/State has fairly submitted that State Government is ready to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in the light of the circular dated 8.5.2015. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No.3 to examine the petitioner's case afresh in the light of the circular dated 8.5.2015 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if the petitioner is found entitled, then necessary benefit will be given to the petitioner without any delay. Petitioner is directed to submit a detail representation along with certified copy of this order before the respondent No.3 within 2 weeks.” 2. Shri Mangal, learned Government Advocate submits that in Writ Petition No.3272 of 2009, petitioner (Smt. Kusum Bhandari) claimed benefit of 5th and 6th Pay Commission, but in the present case the petitioners are claiming benefit of Kramonnati. Hence, case of the petitioners are not covered by order dated 12.1.2017. 3. The present petition is also disposed of directing the petitioners to submit a fresh representation to the District Education Officer, Ratlam along with certified copy of this order and other documents. If such representation are filed, the same shall be considered by the District Education Officer, Ratlam in the light of the circular issued by the Government in respect of grant of kramonnati. The “respondents shall also decide whether staff working under the non-Government aided educational institute are entitled for the benefit of kramonnati at par with Government employees.