ORDER

1. The petitioner before this Court, who is employee of worked charged contingency paid establishment has filed this present petition claiming kramonnati/time bound promotion pay-scale on completion of 10-20 years and 12-24 years of service. The petitioner has retired on 31.7.2022.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Chowkidar in the year 1983 and was engaged under the work charged and contingency paid establishment and in terms of various judgments of this Court he is entitled for Kramonnati and time bound pay-scale.

3. The stand of the respondents is that since the petitioner is working under the work-charged contingency paid establishment, the scheme of Kramonnati as contained in the circular dated 17.3.1999 and 19.4.1999 Kramonnati and time bound pay-scale is not applicable to the petitioner and, therefore, the case for grant of Krammonati payscale deserves to be rejected.

4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this case is covered by the judgment delivered in the case of Teju Lal Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors., reported in ILR (2009) MP 1326 decided on 23.01.2009.

5. Undisputedly, the petitioner is appointed in the year 1983 and he has certainly completed the number of years as required for grant of time bound promotion.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is found that the issue involved in the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the matter of Teju Lal Yadav v. State of MP & others reported in ILR (2009) MP 1326 wherein this Court in the light of the same circulars has considered the issue of grant of krammonati pay scale to the work charged and contingency paid employee and on placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in the matter of K.L. Asre v. State passed on 7/11/2005 in Writ Petition (s) 1070/2003 has held as under:-

"6. Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee. Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service rules, 1978, a contingency paid employee is defined under rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year. In the aforesaid rules of 1978, the categorization of employees is done under rule 6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary. Under sub-rule 2 of rule-6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of permanent work charged or contingency paid employee. The similar provisions are made in the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension rules, 1979 wherein the permanent employee is defined under rule 2(c) to mean a contingency paid employee or a work charged employee who has completed 15 years of service or more on or after 1st January 1974.

7. The complete reading of these rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the MP Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension rules, 1979.

8. Considering the fact that under the statutory rules also the contingency paid and the work charged employees are considered to be forming a common class. There is no reason why the benefit of time bound promotion which is extended to the work charged employees and why the judgment rendered in case of K.L. Asre (supra) be not made applicable in the case of the pres