IMPORTANT POINT
Where a policy is contrary to law or is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution or is arbitrary or irrational, courts would be amenable to judicial review.
A Bench should ordinarily follow the decision of a Coordinate Bench and in case of difference of opinion, should refer the matter to a Larger Bench. However, when a Single Judge of one Circuit Bench considered earlier judgment of another Singe Judge of another Circuit Bench and the Division Bench in appeal considered both judgments in proper perspective, there was no illegality.

JUDGMENT

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. These Appeals assail the Judgment of the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, delivered on 22.10.2008, which upheld the Judgment dated 16.10.2007 of the learned Single Judge.

3. Very briefly stated, the dispute pertains to the eligibility of the Respondents, all of whom are Lecturers/Teachers in the employment of the Education and Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, for increased pay scales. The Respondents claim the benefits of the Kramonnati Scheme with effect from 19.4.1999, whereas the Appellants assert that they are willing to grant the benefit of the Kramonnati Scheme to them, and obviously others similarly placed as they are, but with effect from 1.8.2003.

4. Under the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, the Respondents, were eligible for a higher pay scale on completion of 12 years of service. Subsequently, a policy dated 19.4.1999 known as the said Kramonnati Scheme came to be introduced entitling all Government servants to the benefit of two higher pay scales, the first on completion of 12 years of service, and the second on the further completion of another 12 years (24 years in all). The Appellants contend that this Circular applied to all their employees except the Teacher cadre, since the latter had already enjoyed the benefit of the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules. On 2.11.2001, the Commissioner Public Instructions sanctioned the second Kramonnati for teachers with effect from 19.4.1999. The stand of the Appellants is that this was erroneously extended without obtaining the consent of the Finance Department, and was accordingly corrected by order dated 11.10.2006. However, despite this stance, the State Government took a policy decision on 3.9.2005 granting the benefit of a second Kramonnati to Teachers, but with effect from 1.8.2003. Recovery proceedings were initiated against teachers who had been bestowed Kramonnati from the earlier date.

5. The object of the Kramonnati Scheme must be noted, as this sheds light on its application. The Scheme was introduced to remove frustration among employees who had stagnated at a particular scale for many years without promotional avenues, with the endeavour of removing any adversity in their performance. Keeping this purpose in perspective, there is no basis or justification for discriminating between teachers and all other employees. The fact that the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules were already in place at the time the Kramonnati Scheme was introduced indicates that the Appellants accepted that increase in pay scale are salutary and indeed important for educators on whose motivation and dedication the future of the country and of society is almost entirely dependent. We do not agree with the Appellants' submission that the Respondents are not entitled to claim the benefit of the Kramonnati Scheme because they were already covered under the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, as there is no basis for the two being mutually exclusive. Indeed, we find it logical that the application of the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules regarding the eligibility of increased pay scales should be replaced by the Kramonnati Scheme, which is more generous in the benefits it provides. This is all the more so since the Appellants have themselves ordained that the said Scheme can be availed by the Respondents but from 1.8.2003, which we find to be arbitrary and devoid of any logical foundation.

6. The Appellants have claimed that its Notifications indicated with clarity that the Scheme would not apply to those Departments where a provision of Kramonnati was already available in their Recruitment Rules. However, a perusal of the relevant Clarification issued by the State Government dated 3.5.2000/17.5.2000 makes it clear that its purpose was to protect employees who were working in Departments that had a provision of Kramonnati in their Re