Full Judgment
WRIT PETITION No.17720/201”
29. 10.2012 Shri Sajidulla Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt.
Advocate, for the respondents-State.
The petitioners have come before this Court claiming the benefit of upgradation in the pay scale on completion of 24 years of services as also for grant of Kramonnati.
It is contended that as per the Scheme of the Rules, upgradation is provided in the pay scale, but even after upgradation, on completion of certain years of services, the Kramonnati is also to be granted.
It is contended that the case of petitioners is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Arun Pandey and another versus State of M.P.& another [W.P.No.7352/2008(s)].which has been finally decided on 7.9.2012.
Such contentions of the petitioners are examined.
This Court has categorically decided the controveRs.in the aforesaid case of Arun Pandey (supra) in the following manner :- “The only grievance put forth by the petitioners is that though a Kramonnati pay scale was prescribed in the statutory rules governing the services of the petitioneRs.yet the same was not extended and claiming grant of second Kramonnati on completion of 24 yeaRs.such a representation of the petitioners was rejected on 02.08.2007, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of second Kramonnati as prescribed under the scheme.
It is contended that similar issue was raised before this Court in W.P.No.824/2004 (S) WRIT PETITION No.17720/2012 2 decided on 15.09.2009 and in W.P.No.2406/2010 (S).decided on 03.09.2010, wherein this Court has held that persons are entitled to grant of benefit of Kramonnati pay scale or higher pay scale as prescribed under the statutory rules.
It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that though such a benefit was available, amendments were made in the scheme, yet action was not taken and, therefore, the claim was made.
It is categorically contended that neither the petitioners were granted second upgradation of pay scale on completion of 24 years of service not they were granted the benefit of second Kramonnati.
Refuting such claims made by learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.learned Govt.
Advocate has pointed out that in the return a categorical statement has been made that the scheme of upgradation of pay scale on completion of requisite years of service is already provided in the statutory service rules and, therefore, the Kramonnati scheme would not be applicable for the petitioneRs.It is contended that in view of this, the claim made by the petitioners cannot be accepted.
A perusal of the return will indicate that nothing has been said that the petitioners were given the benefit of higher pay scale on completion of 24 years of service, as is provided in the scheme.
If such a benefit was already accepted by making an amendment in the Kramonnati scheme, as is indicated in Annexure R-2, it was necessary on the part of the respondents to make application of the same and to make a categorical statement before this Court that such a benefit was already granted to the petitioneRs.In view of this, it cannot be accepted that the petitioners were already paid the benefit of second Kramonnati or upgradation in the pay scale.
In view of the aforesaid, orders impugned are hereby quashed and these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the WRIT PETITION No.17720/2012 3 respondents to look into such claim of the petitioneRs.strictly in terms of the scheme made by the respondent-State as amended by circular dated 3/17.05.2000 and in case it is found that the petitioners were not given the benefit of the second Kramonnati, grant such benefit to the petitioners from the date it become due to the petitioneRs.calculate all the arrears and to pay the said amount to them.
Let this exercise be completed within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
With the aforesaid, the writ petitions are finally disposed of.”
Since the controveRs.raised in the present petition appears to be identical, instead of admitting the petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to examine the claim of petitioners in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Arun Pandey (supra).within a period of two months and in case, it is found that the petitioners are identically placed as of the case of Arun Pandey (supra).similar benefit be extended to the petitioners within the aforesaid period, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc.