IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 1 st OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 1421 of 2013 BETWEEN:-

H.D.BADGAIYAN S/O RAMKISHRANDAHR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR [ASI] POLICE R/O JAIL ROAD SIHORA, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI DINESH UPADHYAY - ADVOCATE )

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME (POLICE) VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTER JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR – GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

............................................................................................................................................

This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 31.12.2012 by which claim of petitioner for grant of first time bound pay scale has been rejected on the ground that petitioner was saddled with major penalty, which was effective till June, 2012 and prior thereto petitioner had taken voluntary retirement and in ACRs of years 2010 and 2011, he was granted ‘C’ Grade.

2. It is the case of petitioner that Krammonati Scheme was floated on 24.01.2008, which was made applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2006. Petitioner was promoted to the post of ASI on 20.10.1989. Therefore, his 12 years would be completed in the year 2001. Since there was no Krammonati scheme at the relevant time and it came into force with effect from 01.04.2006, therefore, petitioner was entitled for 1^st Krammonati with effect from 01.04.2006. Since, same was not awarded, therefore a writ petition was filed, which was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation and now by impugned order dated 31.12.2012, claim of petitioner has been rejected on the aforementioned grounds.

3. Challenging the order passed by competent authority, counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to order of punishment dated 31.05.2007 by which petitioner was saddled with punishment of reduction of his pay to minimum of his pay scale for a period of one year and said punishment was made applicable with effect from 01.07.2007. It is submitted that thus, it is clear that major penalty was to remain in force for a period of one year i.e. till 30.06.2008. Therefore, rejection of his claim on the ground that major penalty was awarded for five years is incorrect. It is further submitted that so far as ACRs of the years 2010 and 2011 are concerned, petitioner has already made a representation, which has not been decided. Therefore, claim of petitioner should not have been rejected on the aforesaid ground.

4. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. Respondents in paragraph 5 of their return has claimed that since major penalty was effective till June, 2012 and as petitioner had taken voluntary retirement much prior thereto i.e. on 31.12.2011, therefore, his claim was rightly rejected. So far as ‘C’ grading of ACRs of petitioner of the years 2010 and 2011 is concerned, it is submitted that petitioner is not entitled for grant of time bound pay scale in view of the policy governing the benefit of time bound pay scale. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. During course of arguments, petitioner has raised a dispute that punishment of reduction of his pay to minimum of pay scale was for a period of one year only and therefore, it has come to an end from 01.07.2008. However, no such averment is mentioned in the writ petition. Although, counsel for petitioner has tried to convince this Court by drawing attention to paragraph 5.9 but said submission cannot be considered in favour of petitioner.

7. Paragraph 5.9 of the petition reads as under: “5.9 That, the impugned order passed by the