ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 17.6.2013, whereby the petitioner’s representation for grant of benefit of time pay scale has been rejected.

2. Petitioner, who retired from the service of respondent/Nigam, has earlier preferred a W.P. No. 10722/2012 on the ground that petitioner has been subjected to discrimination with regard to grant of benefit of higher pay scale as has been extended to similarly situated employees vide order dated 23.1.2010. The writ Court vide order dated 30.4.2013, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority of the M.P. Rajya Beej Evam Farm Vikas Nigam to examine the case of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order for grant of two higher pay scales in the light of order dated 23.1.2010. It was further directed that in case the petitioner is found entitled to the benefit of two higher pay scales, the same shall be extended to him with effect from the date when such benefit has been extended to the similarly situated employees and the amount due in this regard shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of decision on the representation of the petitioner.

3. The representation of the petitioner came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 17.6.2013 on the ground that he had already availed two promotions and the employee who has availed second promotion on the 100% promotional post is not entitled for the benefit of time pay scale in view of clause 5 of the circular dated 24.4.2012.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that he worked as Assistant Manager for more than 22 years and thereafter was eligible for grant of benefit of two pay scales in view of the circular dated 1.4.2008, wherein, clause 9, the State Government has clarified that such persons who have been promoted twice will also be entitled to benefit of this scheme.

5. Learned counsel for the State has reiterated the grounds mentioned in the rejection order that the same has been rejected for the reason that petitioner’s second promotion was on the 100% promotional post and as per the circular dated 24.4.2012, the government servants who stand promoted twice shall be eligible for higher pay scale only if the second promotion is made to a post which as per service rule is to be filled partially by direct recruitment, hence the petitioner is not entitled to the second time pay scale. It is pertinent to note that this circular dated 24.4.2012 is not brought on record by the respondent.

6. Respondent No.3 in their reply to para 4.4 and para 4.5 of the petition has stated that the circular dated 1.4.2008 is not applicable, but there is no reasoning as to why it is not applicable nor it has been explained as to why petitioner’s case is different from nine other Assistant Managers, who were extended the benefit of pay scale vide order dated 23.1.2010. In their reply, respondent No.3 has stated that the petitioner was restrained due to departmental action and therefore, not entitled to the benefit extended to his juniors. This particular reason given in the reply, was not the basis of rejection of his application/representation, hence cannot be accepted now.

7. The parties have restricted their arguments to the extent of rejection of the representation of the petitioner for grant of time pay scale. No other ground has been raised or argued.

8. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

9. On perusal of the record, it is observed that after filing the petition, the petitioner has filed four rejoinders, I.A. Nos. 6445/2014, 11813/2014, third rejoinder dated 21.6.2016 and fourth rejoinder dated 28.3.17, I.A. No. 4254/2017 and also filed applications for amendments, I.A. Nos. 8446/2017, 12700/2018 and 10048/2018. By these repeated rejoinders and the applications for amendment, the petitioner has tried to bring on record new facts, new pleadings and