Full Judgment
WRIT PETITION No.15692/201”
08. 10.2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by a decision of this Court where it has been held that in case an employee is granted a benefit of Kramonnati on account of stagnating on one post for a period of 12 or 24 yeaRs.the said benefit cannot be withdrawn on account of subsequent promotion.
As per the instructions issued by the State Government, the salary of the person is to be fixed in accordance to the scale of pay on which he was working before the date of his promotion in terms of Fundamental Rule 22-A.
The issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court in W.P.No.379/2009, Smt.
Santosh Verma versus State of M.P.& otheRs.vide order dated 19.07.2011.
The aforesaid writ petition has been disposed of in the following manner : “9.
The fact remains that the petitioner has retired on 30th June, 2008 and on this date she was drawing the salary of Rs.9,900/- basic.
The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter ‘rules’ for short) are squarely applicable in the case of the petitioner.
The pension is to be fixed on the basis of last emolument drawn, which is defined in Rule 30 of the Rules.
In a specific word it is said that the impression emolument means pay as defined in Rule 9(21) of the Fundamental Rules including dearness pay, if any, as determined by the order of the Government issued from time to time, which a Government servant was receiving WRIT PETITION No.15692/2012 2 immediately before his retirement or on the date of his death as the case may be.
A plain and simple reading of this definition makes it clear that the last salary drawn by the petitioner was to be taken into account for fixation of her pension.
If computation is done on the basis of this salary, which the petitioner was drawing, there was no question of any excess payment to the petitioner and no recovery whatsoever could have been ordered.
In view of this, the order of recovery contained in the pension payment order (Annexure P-5) is per se illegal.
The State Government while issuing the memos has made it clear that once the benefit of Kramonnati is granted, if the promotion is subsequently given in a pay scale, which is lesser than the pay scale of Kramonnati, the pay is to be refixed in the manner no loss is caused to the Government employee.
In paragraph 4 of the circular order dated 18.08.2005 (Annexure P-7 to the writ petition) this particular aspect has been specifically dealt with and it is said that though on regular promotion after the grant of Kramonnati pay scale the pay is required to be refixed in the pay scale applicable to the promotional post but in case it is found that on account of grant of Kramonnati if a person is getting more salary than the maximum of the pay scale of the promotional post then to avoid the financial loss to such a person, excess amount than the maximum of the pay scale be given as personal pay.
Therefore, it is clear that the act on the part of the official respondents was violative of the instructions of the State Government and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.”
10. The petition is, therefore, succeeds and is allowed.
The respondents are directed to revise the salary of the petitioner on her promotion on the post of Lecturer as has been ordered vide order dated 29.08.2005 WRIT PETITION No.15692/2012 3 (Annexure P-2) in appropriate manner in terms of the circular dated 18.08.2005 (Annexure P-7) and calculating the salary of the petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn by her, the pension case of the petitioner be prepared.
Entire amount of recovery deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner be refunded to her and proper pension be calculated, arrears of pension and other retiral dues be paid to her within a period of 3 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The petitioner will also get interest on the amount so deducted from her gratuity and on the amount of arrears of pension and other retiral dues from the date the same was due till the date of actual payment at the rate of 6% per annum.”
In view of the order passed in aforesaid writ petition, this petition is allowed in the same manner.
The respondents are directed to take action for granting benefit to the petitioner in accordance to the order already passed by this Court in case of Smt.
Santosh Verma (supra).Necessary action be taken accordingly within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc