ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. This appeal under section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 10.11.2017 passed in writ petition No. 17421/2017. 3. By impugned order learned Single Judge reversed the decision for non grant of benefit of Time Pay Scale which was denied to the petitioner because of her refusal of promotion. 4. Relevant facts giving rise to the controversy are that, initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1980 was promoted as Upper Division Clerk and thereafter as Accountant on 13.7.2009. That prior to her promotion as Accountant, the petitioner was conferred the benefit of second krammonati. 5. That, State Government through its Finance Department Vide Circular No. F 11.1.2008, Rule-4 dated 24.1.2018 introduced the scheme to overcome stagnation by granting Time Sale Pay by amending existing krammonati scheme w.e.f 1.4.2006. 6. In case of the petitioner, by order dated 4.1.2014, she was promoted as Head Clerk/Assistant Grade-I and was posted in the Office of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Shivpuri, the petitioner declined the same. 7. The department with the object to extend the benefit of Time Scale Pay constituted a committee to decide the entitlement of the employees, the Committee in its meeting held on 21.10.2015 decided in respect in petitioner to not to grant the said benefit, the reasons which find mention in the minutes are : ^^1- Jherh laxhrk dkjM+k] }kjk ys[kkiky ls eq[; fyfid ds in ij inksUufr ij tkus ls i= fnukad 7-1-2014 }kjk bUdkj fd;k x;k rnuqlkj dk;kZy;hu vkns'k Øekad@v&3@LFkkŒ 10@2013@210 fnukad 28-1-2014 ds }kjk inksUufr fujLr dh xbZ gSA vkns'k layXu gSA vr% foRr foHkkx ds vkns'k fnukad 24 tuojh 2008 ds fcUnq Øekad 13 dh 'krZ ds vuØe esa Ádj.k ij fopkj djrs gq, fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd Jherh dkjM+k dks inksUufr ls bUdkj fd;s tkus ds dkj.k mUgsa iwoZ ls Loh—r mPprj osrueku ds varxZr foRrh; ykHk okfil ugha fy;k tk,sxkA ijUrq mDr 'krZ vuqlkj ckn esa dksbZ mPprj osrueku dk foRrh; ykHk ns; ugha gksus ls ik=rk ugha gSA^^ 8. On the basis whereof, the petitioner was informed on her application under Right to Information Act of her ineligibility for Higher Pay Scale under Time Scale Pay. 9. On the basis whereof, the petitioner was informed on her application under Right to Information Act of her ineligibility for Higher Pay Scale under Time Scale Pay. 9. Aggrieved, petitioner questioned the same in Writ Petition No. 17421/2017, wherein learned Single Judge relying on the decision in Lokendra Kumar Agrawal v. State of M.P. and another, [ (2010) 2 MPHT 163 ] set aside the decision and directed for the grant of Higher of Pay Scale. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the record. 11. Evidently, the non-grant of Higher Pay Scale is because of clause 13 of the circular dated 24.1.2008 which stipulates : ^^13- bl ;kstuk ds varxZr mPprj osrueku dk foRrh; ykHk ysus ds i'pkr ;fn dksbZ deZpkjh ckn esa fu;fer inksUufr Lohdkj djus ls bUdkj djrk gS rks mls iwoZ ls Lohd`r mPprj osrueku ds varxZr foRrh; ykHk okfil ugha fy;k tk,sxkA ijUrq ckn esa mls dksbZ mPprj osruekuksa dk foRrh; ykHk ns; ugha gksxkA^^ 12. The singular issue is whether the State and its functionaries are justified in depriving the petitioner the benefit of Higher Pay Scale because of petitioner's refusal to carry out the promotion order. 13. Clause 13, as apparent, is in two parts. The first part deals with the class of cases wherein benefit of Higher Pay Scale under the scheme has been granted and thereafter the incumbent who is promoted refuses such promotion; the policy is that the benefit of Higher Pay Scale cannot be withdrawn. The second part deals with the case of such employee whose entitlement for Higher Pay Scale arises after promotion which they have foregone. 14. In Lokendra Kumar Agarwal (supra), the Division Bench was dwelling upon the case of an employee who was granted the benefit of Higher Pay Scale but was later withdrawn because subsequently the employee had forgone her promotion. 15. Whereas the present is a case covered by second part of clause 13 which prohibits grant of Higher Pay Scale to an incumbent who has foregone promotion and thereafter became eligible for grant of Higher Pay Scale. Learned Single Judge, as rightly contended on behalf of the appellant, was thus not correct in applying the principle of law laid down in Lokendra Kumar Agrawal (supra), in present case. 16. Learned Single Judge, as rightly contended on behalf of the appellant, was thus not correct in applying the principle of law laid down in Lokendra Kumar Agrawal (supra), in present case. 16. Reverting to the issue, clause 13 clearly stipulates that though the benefit of Higher Pay Scale granted prior to promotion cannot be withdrawn on foregoing subsequent promotion; however in case where the entitlement for Higher Pay Scale accrues after the promotion, and if such promotion is foregone, the incumbent is not entitled for the Higher Pay Scale. Evidently, the validity of clause 13 was not challenged by the petitioner. 17. Since clause 13 of the circular dated 24.1.2008 in clear terms prohibit the grant of Higher Pay Scale in case where the entitlement accrues after the refusal of promotion and the petitioner enures the said disqualification by refusing to carry out the promotion order dated 7.1.2014, whereby she was promoted as Assistant Grade-I/Head Clerk, we are of the considered opinion that the error of law has crept in the order dated 10.11.2017 passed in W.P. No. 17421/2017. Consequently, it is set aside. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 18. The appeal is allowed to the extent above. No costs.