ORDER :

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 4-2-2004 by which the petitioner has been granted the benefit of Kramonnati w.e.f. 7-4-2002 to 3-5-2003 only.

2. It appears that the petitioner was granted promotion by order dated 24-4-2003 on the post of Daftari. The said promotion was refused by the petitioner by letter dated 3-5-2003. After refusal of promotion by the petitioner, impugned order was passed sanctioning the first Kramonnati in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 7-4-2002 but since the petitioner had forgone his promotion on 3-5-2003, therefore, the benefit of said Kramonnati was extended only upto 3-5-2003.

3. Challenging the grant of kramonnati for a limited period, it is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner, that once, a right has accrued in favor of the petitioner, then the petitioner cannot be deprived of the same, on the ground that the petitioner had forgone his promotion.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent, that Kramonnati is a stagnation allowance. Where a person was granted promotion, and if he has forgone the same, then it can be said that the concerning employee has waived his right to get the kramonnati. The counsel for the State in support of his contention has relied upon the circular dated 23-9-2002.

5. It appears that some of the employees, after getting the benefit of kramonnati, were lateron granted promotion, but they consciously forwent the same, and it appears that in the light of the above mentioned circular, the kramonnati granted to those persons was withdrawn. Accordingly, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lokendra Kumar Agrawal vs. State of M.P. and anr., reported in 2010(2) MPHT 163 (DB) has held as under :—

“5. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the appellant was granted the benefit of time bound promotion pay scale, i.e., pay scale of Rs. 4500- 7000, after considering the case by the duly constituted committee. He was granted the aforesaid pay scale w.e.f. 19th October, 2005. Thereafter, appellant was promoted on the post of Head Clerk and he had foregone the said promotion. Consequently, the benefit of time bound promotion granted to the appellant has also been withdrawn. However, the appellant was considered by a duly constituted committee for the purpose of grant of benefit of time bound promotion and thereafter the aforesaid benefit was extended to the appellant. In our opinion, subsequent withdrawal of benefit of time bound promotion of the appellant amounts to reduction in pay of the appellant and it could not be done without holding a proper enquiry because the reduction of pay amounts to penalty. Appellant has not committed any misconduct. He has simply foregone his promotion. In such circumstances, the department can withdraw the benefit of promotional post from the appellant, however, the benefit of time bound promotion granted to the appellant earlier could not be withdrawn because time bound promotion was granted to the appellant as upgradation of pay after completing certain period of service and withdrawal of the aforesaid benefit amounts to violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.

6. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has committed an error by holding that the respondents can withdraw the benefit of time bound promotion because the appellant refused to join on the promotional post. On account of refusal to join on the promotional post the appellant has already been suffered by foregoing the benefit which could have been accrued to the appellant due to his promotion on the next higher post. However, under the Executive instructions issued by the Department the benefit of time bound promotion of the appellant could not be withdrawn because it would amount to reduction in pay and the aforesaid action is in violation of Article 311(2) of th