Allowed

B.P. Sharma v. State

Chhattisgarh HC1 Apr 2016WPS/3711/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant, an Auditor promoted from Accountant, challenged denial of F.R. 22-D benefit. Holding that identical pay scales do not bar benefit if duties differ, Court allowed Application under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act. Petitioner entitled to arrears of special pay.

What did the court decide?

Entitled to benefit of F.R. 22-D from date of promotion; arrears of special pay to be paid within 3 months.

B.P. Sharma Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

§ P

V“ b l \‘5

ht‘

”&

”&	IN THE M.P. ADMINISTRA	TIVE TRIBUNAL. BENCH ~ RAIPUR La P/yN'33}: %
	O.A.No.	‘I~dtoda by ohllv.‘ / m, P, v. of 2001
§§ .§	APPLICANT	B.P.Sharma S/o Late M.L.Sharma aged 59 years, Auditor, Office of the Aanchalik Prabandhak, Krishi—Jalwayu Khetra (Chhattisgarh-Ka ^Maidan), Raipur (Chhattisgarh).
s	VERSUS RESPONDENTS :	l. State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mantralaya. BHOPAL.
		2. State of Chhattisgarh through Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, RAIPUR
		3.—Director of Agriculture Madhya Pradesh, Directorate of Agriculture, BHOPAL.
	3	4 'Additional Director of Agriculture. Chhattisgarh . abhandi, RAIPUR (C.G.) . Aanchalik Prabandhak Krishi—Jalwayu Kshetra, Chhattisgarh Ka Maiden. RAIPUR (C.G.).
	APPLICATION UNDER SECT a ACT, 1985.	ION 19 OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

¶7

NAFR

¶8

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR

WPS No. 3711 of 2005

B.P. Sharma

---- Petitioner

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh and others

¶15

---- Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner Shri J.__A.o Lohani, Advocate ' V'Shank For Respondent/State Shri a Thakur, GA

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

01/04/2016

¶20

The petitioner is claiming benefit of F.R. 22-D w.e.f. 29.06.1995 when he was promoted from the post of Accountant to the post of Auditor in the Department of Agriculture.

¶21

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the z pay^scale of the post of Accountant and Auditor carry the same pay scale, the petitioner having not been benefited by any special pay in the promoted post of Auditor, which carries duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post of Accountant, he is entitled to the benefit of F.R. 22—D as held by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in the matter of Kunti Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others in O‘A. No.224/1992 , decided on 22.10.1992, against which SLP has been dismissed by the —«

¶22

n/ \Q

¶23

Supreme Court.

¶24

Learned State counsel would oppose the petition^{onsubmissionthat} the post of Accountant and Auditor are more or less carrying the same nature of work, therefore, the petitioner is not entitied to the benefit of F.R. 22—D.

¶25

In the matter of Kunti Saxena (supra), the petitioner^was promoted from the post of Head Master to the post of Lecturer. Even though, both the poststrcarry^thesame pay^scale,the petitioner^thereinwas held entitled to the benefit of F.R. 22—D. In the case at hand, the petitioner^has preferred^{arepresentationon01.03.2000} (Annexure—A8) mentioning that in his entire service, he was granted three promotions, out of which in firsttwo promotions, he was granted the benefit of F.R. 22-D, however, in the 3rd promotion i.e. the promotion from Accountant to Auditor, such-“benefit has not been granted. lt was also mentioned that the persons junior to him, who are still working on the post of AG—Il, are granted higher pay scale by giving them benefit of second krammonati. Thus, such juniors, who were not found fit for promotion,^{aredrawinghigher} pay^scale than the petitioner.

¶26

ltappears, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of F.R. 22—D only on account of— the fact that the pay scale of both the posts are same, however, a plain reading ofthe language employed in F.R. 22-D would reveal that there is no such bar in the originally enacted provision’to the effect that if the pay scale of the feeder post and promoted post are same, benefit of FR. 22—D would not be available. A proviso^was added to F.R. 22—D on 12.08.1968 toth‘e following effect:-

¶27

“Provided further that the provision of this rule shall not apply where a government servant is promoted A.

¶28

or appointed to a higher post in the scale of pay which is identical with the scale of pay of the lower post^{butisdistinguishedbyanadditionofaspecial} pay^only. ln such cases the incumbents will get only the special pay in addition to their pay in the lower post."

¶29

Emphasis supplied

¶30

A careful reading of the proviso leads to a conclusion that as a matter of fact, it implies benefit of F.R. 22-D to be made available to such promotees, who have been promoted to a post, which carries the same pay scale as that o'fthe feeder cadre but on promotion, a special pay^isaddedtohis pay^{scale,whichwouldmean,whensuchspecial} pay^{isnotadded,benefitof/FR.22-_Dwouldbeavailabledespiteboth} the posts carrying thesame pay scale.

¶31

For the foregoing, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of FLR. 22-D from the date of promotion on the post^{ofAuditor.Sincethey} petitioner^{hasalreadyretired,thearrearsof} difference of pay be paid to the petitioner without any interest within a period^{of3monthsfromthedateofsubmissionofcertifiedcopyofthis} order.

¶32

Sdl-

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

¶35

Nirala

B.P. Sharma v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.P. Sharma v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pyare Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jainath Dewangan and Anr. Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank andANR.

D.P.Pandey Vs State

Radheshyam Chandraker and Ors. Vs Nagar Palika Parishad and Ors.

Heeralal Yadu Vs Smt. Itwara

R.k. Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.