Back
2021 Supreme(MP) 14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
VISHAL MISHRA, J.
Veena Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10959/2020
Decided On : 09-03-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anil Sharma, Learned Counsel
For the Respondents:D.D. Bansal, Learned Govt. Advocate
The recovery of benefits from a retired employee and the entitlement to pay scale benefits should be in accordance with the promotional criteria and legal provisions, and recovery from a retired employee may be impermissible.
Headnote:
Pay Scale - Entitlement of Third Time Pay Scale - Madhya Pradesh Class III (Ministerial) Forest Services Recruitment Rules 2000 - Krammonati Scheme - Recovery of Benefits - Governor's Right to Withhold Pension - [FACT OF THE CASE] The petitioner, a retired employee, challenged the cancellation of the benefits of second and third time pay scale and the recovery made from her without providing any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner argued that she was entitled to the benefits as per the promotional criteria and the Krammonati Scheme. The State contended that the petitioner was not entitled for promotion as per the Promotional Rules of 2000 and that the benefits were wrongly extended to her. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The Court found that the petitioner was rightly extended the benefit of Third Time Bound Scale and the recovery of benefits from a retired employee was impermissible. [ISSUES] The issues revolved around the entitlement of the petitioner to the pay scale benefits, the legality of the recovery, and the discriminatory treatment. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The Court relied on previous judgments and legal provisions to establish that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits and that the recovery from a retired employee was impermissible. [FINAL DECISION] The impugned orders were quashed, and the authorities were directed to refund the recovered amount with interest and consider the petitioner's case for revised pension.}
JUDGMENT :
Vishal Mishra, J.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 9.8.2016 Annexure P/1, 22.4.2017 Annexure P/2, 15.5.2017 Annexure P/3 and 27.5.2017 Annexure P/4, whereby the benefits of second and third time pay scale granted to the petitioner has been cancelled and consequently the recovery to the tune of Rs. 2,24,577/- has also been made from the petitioner, which is reflected from the PPO order Annexure P/5. The aforesaid action is being taken without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
2. It is argued that the petitioner was initially appointed as Asstt. Grade III on 31.3.1981 and she was extended the benefit of second time pay scale with effect from 1.4.2007 vide order dated 12.11.2011 and third time pay scale with effect from 1.7.2014 vide order dated 21.5.2015 and after completion of service and on attaining the age of superannuation she stood retired on 30.4.2017. It is argued that the services of the petitioner has governed by Madhya Pradesh Class III (Ministerial) Forest Services Recruitment Rules 2000 has amended from time to time. A promotion channel of petitioner is Asstt. Grade II thereafter Accountant/Establishment Clerk and promotion on the post of Accountant only for those persons who have passed the accounts exam as per Rule 15(1)(b). The aforesaid aspect was came before this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Garg and others Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P. No. 1997/2017 decided on 13.2.2020), wherein this Court has held that a person seeking promotion on the post of Establishment Clerk is not required to pass the Account Examination. The same will only be compulsory for a person working on the post and claiming promotion on the post of Accountant. In another case in Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P. No. 5737/2018 (s) decided on 4.2.2020) the similar controversy has cropped up before this Court and again the Court has taken a similar view.
3. It is pointed out that the State Government has enforced the scheme known as Krammonati Scheme and the circular dated 24.1.2008 issued by the Ministry of Finance by the name and order of the Governor granting assured career progression, time scale of pay to the employees of Cader C, who have completed 10 years of service on direct recruitment post and on completion of 20 years of service for Second Higher Pay Scale. Another circular was issued on 30.9.2014 and expanded the provisions of earlier circular and provided that every employee entitled to third time pay scale on completion of 30 years of service. At the verge of retirement of the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 has passed an order, whereby directed the Divisional Forest Officer to cancel the benefit of Third Time Pay Scale on the ground of non passing of Account examination and the order was passed cancelling the benefit of Third Time Bound Scale extended to the petitioner and thereafter the recovery was also made which is reflected from PPO order after the retirement of the petitioner. The Rules governing the entitlement of an employee for grant of time scale benefits provides that the same has to be extended to an employee in the manner in which the promotion is to be accessed. Only the ACRs of preceding years are required to be seen as per the promotion prospects. The law is already settled as per the promotion for the post of Establishment Clerk is concerned that they are not required to pass the Account Examination. Thus, the petitioner on completion of 30 years of service was rightly extended the benefit of Third Time Bound Scale and the illegality has been committed by the respondents in recovering the benefits. Even in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (white washers) 2015(4) SCC 334 after the retirement of an employee no recovery can be made without the permission of the Governor as the Governor is having the right to direct for withholding of pension or pensionary benefits
