Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 636 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Atar Singh Jat

2020-05-28

ATUL SREEDHARAN, SANJAY YADAV

body2020
ORDER Yadav, J.--1. This appeal under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 20.6.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.1512/2015. 2. The challenge in writ petition was to orders dated 13.6.2013 and 21.4.2014; whereby the claim of the petitioner for Time Scale of Pay, his pay was fixed in Pay Band Rs. 5200-20200+Grade Pay Rs. 2400 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 was rejected. 3. Initially engaged as Driver in the work-charged and contingency paid establishment w.e.f. 26.12.1980, the petitioner was granted the benefit of kramonnati on completion of 24 years of service vide order dated 10.12.2004. Accordingly, with effect from 26.12.2004, the petitioner was fixed in the "kramonnati" pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000. The pay was fixed at Rs. 4600/- as on 26.12.2004. 4. Evidently, the benefit of "kramonnati" pay scale was accorded to the petitioner, a member of work-charged and contingency paid establishment in pursuance to the circular issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh through its General Administration Department bearing F-1-1/ osŒvkŒÁŒ /1999 dated 19.4.1999 and supplementary Circular No. F-1-1 osŒvkŒÁŒ /1999 dated 24.12.2003. 5. The State of Madhya Pradesh through its Department of Finance brought in vogue the policy to grant Time Scale of Pay vide circular No.F-11/1/2008/ fu;e@pkj dated 24.1.2008; later on, vide Circular No.F-11-1/2008/ fu;e@pkj dated 1.4.2008 and 4.8.2008, issued clarification as to various issues raised in implementing the policy. However, it is clear from reading the circular dated 24.1.2008 and its clarifications that the benefit of Time Scale was confined only to the members of civil services. 6. For the members of work-charged and contingency paid establishment, the scheme/policy of grant of Time Scale was applied with effect from 1.1.2016. This will be evident from the Circular No. F-11-13/1661/2016/ fu;e@pkj dated 21.9.2016, reproduced below for ready reference. 6. For the members of work-charged and contingency paid establishment, the scheme/policy of grant of Time Scale was applied with effect from 1.1.2016. This will be evident from the Circular No. F-11-13/1661/2016/ fu;e@pkj dated 21.9.2016, reproduced below for ready reference. e/; Áns'k 'kklu foRr foHkkx oYyHk Hkou] ea=ky; Hkksiky Øekad ,Q 11&13@1661@2016@fu;e@pkj Hkksiky] fnukad 21-9-2016 Áfr] 'kklu ds leLr foHkkx e/; Áns'k fo"k; % dk;ZHkkfjr ,oa vkdfLedrk fufèk ls osru ÁkIr djus okys deZpkfj;ksa dks fnukad 1-1-2016 ls le;eku osrueku ykxw fd;s tkus ckcr~A jkT; 'kklu dh flfoy lsokvksa ds fy;s foRr foHkkx ds ifji= Øekad ,Q 11-1-2008@fu;e@pkj fnukad 24 tuojh 2008 ls tkjh ÁFke ,oa f}rh; le;eku osrueku ;kstuk rFkk e/; Áns'k 'kklu] foRr foHkkx ds ifji= Øekad ,Q 11-17-2014@fu;e@pkj fnukad 30 flrEcj 2014 ls jkT; dh flfoy lsokvksa ds fy;s tkjh r`rh; le;eku osrueku ;kstuk jkT; esa dk;ZHkkfjr ,oa vkdfLedrk fuf/k ls osru ÁkIr djus okys deZpkfj;ksa ds fy;s fnukad 01 tuojh 2016 ls ÁHkko'khy dh tkrh gSA 2- jkT; dh flfoy lsokvksa ds fy;s le;eku osrueku ;kstuk varxZr tkjh leLr fu;e ,oa funsZ'k ;Fkkor ykxw gksaxsA e/; Áns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj ¼vfu:) eqdthZ½ lfpo e/; Áns'k 'kklu] foRr foHkkx 7. It appears that the Authorities concerned due to oversight of the fact that, the circular dated 24.1.2008 and its clarification that, the scheme of Time Scale of Pay was applicable only to the members of civil service, passed order granting higher pay scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000 w.e.f. 1.4.2006, on 27.2.2009. The fixation was, however, opposed by the Finance Audit and Pension Department of Accountant General, State of Madhya Pradesh on the ground that being a member of work-charged and contingency paid establishment and being not a member of civil service, the petitioner is not entitled for higher scale in the Time Pay Scale. 8. The objections resulted in refixation and the rejection of petitioner's representation vide order dated 13.6.2013 and 21.4.2014 which being challenged in the subject writ petition resulted in their quashment by impugned order. 9. Learned Single Judge interfered with the order on the reasoning that, the "kramonnati" time scale granted vide order dated 10.12.2004 was the first kramonnati on completion of 24 years of service and the benefit which was granted vide order dated 27.2.2009 was in terms of second kramonnati. Learned Single Judge relied on circular dated 27/29.3.2001and 6.10.2003. 9. Learned Single Judge interfered with the order on the reasoning that, the "kramonnati" time scale granted vide order dated 10.12.2004 was the first kramonnati on completion of 24 years of service and the benefit which was granted vide order dated 27.2.2009 was in terms of second kramonnati. Learned Single Judge relied on circular dated 27/29.3.2001and 6.10.2003. These circulars as evident therefrom are in furtherance to the policy dated 12.10.1999 of granting "kramonnati" pay scale made applicable to the members of work-charged and contingency paid establishment vide Circular No. F-5/4/1/ osŒvkŒÁŒ /1998 dated 29.3.2001 and supplementary circular No.F-1-1/1/ osŒvkŒÁŒ /1999 dated 24.12.2003. Whereas, the scheme of "Time Scale of Pay" was brought in vogue vide Circular No.F-11/1/2008/ fu;e@pkj dated 24.1.2008 and is different than the kramonnati scheme which permitted kramonnati on completion of 12/24 years of service. Whereas, the scheme of Time Scale of Pay facilitates grant of higher pay scale w.e.f. 1.4.2006 on completion of 8 years and 10 years of service by the employees who are members of civil service. The benefit of said scheme of Time Scale of Pay was extended to the members of workcharged and contingency paid establishment w.e.f. 1.1.2016. Thus, the petitioner was not entitled for the same (i.e. Time Scale of Pay) prior to 1.1.2016. 10. Learned Single Judge having glossed over these factual aspects, erred in quashing the order dated 13.6.2013. 11. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.6.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 1512/2015 is set aside. The order dated 13.6.2013 is restored. 12. The appeal is allowed to the extent above. No costs.