Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 20435
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL, J
K.L. Bairagi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 18175/2012
D.K. Tripathi,Advocate General
The court affirmed the petitioner's entitlement to Krammonati after 12 years of service, emphasizing the inadequacy of the respondents' response.
Headnote:(A) GAD Circular dated 17th March/19.04.1999 - Promotion and Krammonati - Petitioner appointed as Forest Guard in 1965, promoted to Forester in 1988, and entitled to Krammonati after 12 years of service - Respondents' reply deemed cryptic and negligent, failing to address the facts adequately. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Legal principles of promotion and pay revision - Pay revisions are distinct from upgradation and must adhere to established rules. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contended entitlement to Krammonati after 12 years of service as Forester, while the respondents claimed he received financial benefits based on revised pay-scales.
Findings of Court:
The court found the respondents' reply inadequate and allowed the petition for Krammonati consideration.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to Krammonati after 12 years of service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the negligence of the respondents in addressing the facts and affirmed the petitioner's right to consideration for Krammonati based on service duration.
Result: Petition allowed.
Petitioner's contention is that petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard in the year 1965. He was given promotion from a retrospective date i.e. 1988 on the post of Forester. Petitioner's contention is that on completion of 12 years of service as Forester, he was entitled to grant of Krammonati in terms of GAD circular dated 17th March/19.04.1999.
2. Shri Deepak Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents-State, in his turn reading para 4 of the return filed on behalf of the respondents-State, submits that petitioner was granted benefit of promotion w.e.f. 29.12.1988 on the post of Forester and financial benefits on the basis of revised pay-scales were also granted to him. Accordingly, the petitioner has been granted two higher pay-scales during his tenure of service.
3. This reply is cryptic and absurd as has been filed under the signatures of Shri S.S. Bhadoria S/o Shri S.N.S. Bhadoria, S.D.O. (Forest), Sehore Forest Division (Territorial), Sehore and OIC of the case. Even Government Advocate who filed the return has not applied his mind to the facts and has prepared a very casual and cursory reply without applying his mind to the fact situation of the case. Pay revision is never a case of upgradation. Pay revisions are effected as and when pay revision rules are adopted by the concerned Government from time to time.
4. Thus, it is evident that State, its OIC and its Government Advocate, all three were negligent in their approach in mentioning before the High Court that the petitioner was given benefit of second upgradation in the form of Pay revision. This reply being cryptic, is rejected. Petition deserves to be and is allowed.
5. Let case of the petitioner on completion of 12 years of service on 29.12.2000 be considered for grant of Krammonati in terms of the GAD circulars on the same parameters as are mentioned in the said circulars within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
6. Respondents-State shall also bear cost of this litigation, which is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), to be paid directly to the petitioner in his account.
7. In above terms, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
