Ramendra Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1051197
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnFeb-13-2013
AppellantRamendra Shrivastava
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
1 w.p.no.11710/2011 13.02.2013 shri m.a.khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri s.m.lal, learned government advocate for the respondents. vide this petition petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to provide/grant benefits of krammonati as per circular dated 19.04.1999 along with interest. the aforesaid relief has been sought in the background of the facts that, the petitioner having served as sub-auditor retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f.30.11.2008 and since she was initially appointed as sub- auditor on 26.02.1979, the benefit of kramonnati has been claimed, as per circular dated 19.04.1999. respondents on being noticed have filed their return wherein it is stated in paragraph 3-“3. that the petitioner was working in the panchayat department and was facing departmental enquiry and the dpc met on 29.7.06 considering the cases of employee working in the panchayat department for grant of krammonati vetanman. the case of the petitioner was not considered because he was facing the departmental enquiry at that time. the departmental enquiry ended on 6.3.2009 i.e.after retirement of the petitioner. the case of the petitioner for krammonati vetanman, therefore was not considered when he was in panchayat department. now, the petitioners dues and all that would be paid by the local fund audit department because he retired from the said department. however the record of dpc and other relevant records which could be made basis for considering the case of the petitioner for grant of krammonati vetanman as per his entitlement. the case of the petitioner is under consideration therefore, that would take sometime. after considering the case of 2 the petitioner as per his entitlement appropriate order would be issued by the competent authority.” since the respondents does not dispute the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of krammonati as per circular dated 19.4.1999, let a decision be taken to that effect within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of this order. the petition is finally disposed of in above terms.cc as per rules. (sanjay yadav) judge loretta 
Judgment:

1 W.P.No.11710/2011 13.02.2013 Shri M.A.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

Vide this petition petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to provide/grant benefits of Krammonati as per circular dated 19.04.1999 along with interest.

The aforesaid relief has been sought in the background of the facts that, the petitioner having served as Sub-Auditor retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f.30.11.2008 and since she was initially appointed as Sub- Auditor on 26.02.1979, the benefit of Kramonnati has been claimed, as per circular dated 19.04.1999.

Respondents on being noticed have filed their return wherein it is stated in paragraph 3-

“3. That the petitioner was working in the Panchayat Department and was facing departmental enquiry and the DPC met on 29.7.06 considering the cases of employee working in the Panchayat Department for grant of Krammonati Vetanman.

The case of the petitioner was not considered because he was facing the departmental enquiry at that time.

The departmental enquiry ended on 6.3.2009 i.e.after retirement of the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner for Krammonati Vetanman, therefore was not considered when he was in Panchayat Department.

Now, the petitioners dues and all that would be paid by the Local Fund Audit department because he retired from the said department.

However the record of DPC and other relevant records which could be made basis for considering the case of the petitioner for grant of Krammonati Vetanman as per his entitlement.

The case of the petitioner is under consideration therefore, that would take sometime.

After considering the case of 2 the petitioner as per his entitlement appropriate order would be issued by the competent authority.”

Since the respondents does not dispute the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of Krammonati as per circular dated 19.4.1999, let a decision be taken to that effect within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of this order.

The petition is finally disposed of in above terMs.Cc as per rules.

(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Loretta