IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 11 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 2513 of 2018 KUMARI PRIYANKA KHARE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Devendra Kumar Dixit - Senior Advocate with Shri Anshul Dixit - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri V.P. Tiwari - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :

"i) To call for the records from the respondents for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court and quash Clause-6 of Annexure P/6.

ii) To command the respondents to grant advantages of Krammonati pay scale to the petitioner by issuance of an appropriate writ and/or order.

iii) Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted in favour of the petitioner alongwith cost of this petition."

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been promoted vide order dated 01.04.2015 from the post of Teacher to Senior Teacher. It is submitted that in the said order, the respondents have mentioned condition No.6, according to which, if the employee who has been given promotion had foregone promotion previously would not be entitled for promotion. It is submitted that because of such condition the petitioner would not be able to reap the fruits of Higher Pay scale/Kramonnati. It is submitted that such condition is not tenable in the eye of law as held by this court in series of judgments and orders passed relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Lokendra Kumar Agrawal vs. State of M.P. 2010 (2) MPHT 163 [Gendalal Arniya vs. Finance Department (W.P.No.793/2017), Finance Department vs Gendalal Arniya (W.A.No.939/2017), State of M.P. vs. Kanhaiyalal Jaitpuriya (W.A.No.21/2017)]. It is further submitted that the question in regard to non- grant of Higher Pay Scale/Kramonnati on foregoing promotion is no more res integra and already settled by this court in the aforesaid judgments/orders.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the question in regard to non-grant of Kramonnati to those employees who have foregone promotion has been considered by Full Bench of this court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Temniya vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR 2025 MP 1912. It is further submitted that policy decision has been taken by the State Government in regard to the employees who have foregone the promotion to disentitle them from claiming Kramonnati vide Circular dated 23.09.2002 (Annexure R/1) and on the basis prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The only question raised before this Court is that the condition which has been imposed in the order dated 01.04.2015 is non est in the eyes of law or not in the light of catena of orders and judgments passed by this Court. However, it has been found by this Court that these cases are stale in the light of latest pronouncement done by Full Bench of this Court, considering all these cases, in the case of Ramesh Chandra (supra), it has been held :

"31. Thus, to answer first issue in reference as to ‘whether an employee who declined promotion, is entitled to get benefit of kramonnati’, the answer in categorical terms is NO. Once an employee declines regular promotion, he is not entitled to get benefit of kramonnati."

6. The Full Bench in answer to question No.1 has held :

"Question No.1 is answered accordingly that if an employee is promoted within the period specified in ACP Scheme or declined to avail offered promotion, in both situations, he will not be entitled to get benefit of Kramonnati."

7. The Full Bench of this Court has further held as under :

"16. It is submitted that law in regard to entitlement to claim financial upgradation on denial of promotion is now well settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in U