Vishambharnath Mishra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:11112

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Order reserved on : 09-01-2025

¶6

Order passed on : 06-03-2025

¶7

WPS No. 3502 of 2015

¶8

Vishambharnath Mishra, aged about 74 years, S/o Shri Ramkishun Mishra, Retired Head Master, Government Middle School, Khutera, Block Patharia, Bilaspur (CG), R/o Village Dohatra, Post Mora, via Nandghat, Distt. Durg (CG)

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG)

¶12

Director, Public Instruction, Raipur (CG)

¶13

Joint Director, Treasury, Account & Pension, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)

¶14

District Education Officer, Bilaspur (CG)

¶15

District Education Officer, Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli (CG)

¶16

Block Education Officer, Patharia, District Bilaspur (CG)

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner	: Mr. Dhaniram Patel, Advocate.
For Respondents/State	: Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer.

¶19

2

¶20

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J

¶21

CAV ORDER

¶22

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13.8.2015 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.5/District Education Officer, Mungeli whereby the petitioner has been denied benefit of 2nd Kramonnatti on the ground that he has already been promoted while he was in service.

¶23

Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner retired in the year 2002 after attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Head Master. As per Circular dated 3.10.2008 (Annexure P/3), the State Government issued direction for giving benefit of 1st and 2nd Kramonnatti to the employees who have completed 12 & 24 years of service. Again the State issued a Circular dated 11.1.2010 (Annexure P/4) whereby it was directed to the concerned department to give benefit of 1st and 2nd Kramonnatti to the retired/dead employees who were entitled and were not given the said benefit. While considering this issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Tripura Vs. KK Roy, AIR 2004 SCW 01 , held that the employees should have been given benefit of two upgraded pay scale, first after completing 12 years of service and the second after completing 24 years of service. The petitioner had filed a writ petition i.e. WPS No.7641/2010 before this Court for seeking 2nd Kramonnatti on the basis of aforesaid circulars. However, vide order dated 3.1.2011 (Annexure P/5) the said

¶24

3

¶25

petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the concerned authority in light of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner made a representation before the concerned authority but it was not decided, hence legal notices were served on the respondent vide Annexure P/6 and P/7. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 13.8.2015 (Annexure P/1) the petitioner was denied benefit of 2nd Kramonnatti on the ground that during service period, he was promoted. Hence this petition for the following relief:

¶26

"10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 13.08.15 issued by the respondent no.4.

¶27

10.2 That, respondents further be directed to extend the benefits of 2nd kramonnati in light of circular issued by the state from time to time, within a reasonable time, as this court deems fit.

¶28

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court further be pleased to direct the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioner after giving benefit as state above.

¶29

10.4 That, any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly be granted."

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. Even if the petitioner was promoted during service period, he is eligible for grant of 2nd

¶31

4

¶32

Kramonnatti as per amendment made in the scheme in the year 1984 (Annexure P/8). The services of the petitioner are governed by the old circular as he was entitled for 2nd Kramonnatti way back in the year 1984 after completion of 24 years of service and therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the circulars issued by the State in this regard. Respondent No.4 has wrongly interpreted the circular of the year 1999 whereas the earlier circular clearly says about extension of benefit of Kramonnatti even to those who have been promoted. In a writ petition involving identical issue i.e. WP No.2805/2002 parties being RS Verma Vs. State of CG and others, this Court vide order dated 29.8.2006 has granted increment to the petitioner and cost has also been imposed on the respondents vide Annexure D/1. For all these reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be granted the relief claimed in this petition.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State would contend that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches as the petitioner stood retired in the year 2002 and after 9 years of retirement he initially filed a writ petition in the year 2011 which was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file representation on 3.1.2011. After rejection of his representation by the impugned order dated 13.8.2015, he filed the instant writ petition. While he was in service, he never made any application/representation for grant of benefit of 2nd Kramonnatti nor

¶34

5

¶35

filed any petition. After settlement of all the retiral dues and pension, he directly approached this Court. He has miserably failed to explain the inordinate delay in approaching this Court by filing writ petition. Therefore, this petition is liable to dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶36

He would next submit that as per representation of the petitioner he claimed parity with the other employees. In this regard, it is submitted that in the matter of SS Balu and another Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2009) 2 SCC 479 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that reliefs passed on parity cannot be claimed when the petition suffers from delay and laches. Further, in the matter of Bhakar Beas Management Board Vs. Krishan Kumar Vij and another, (2010) 8 SCC 701 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to consider and deprecated the casual approach of the High Court in overlooking delay of 8 years while passing the order considering the claim with regard to promotion after 8 years of accrual of cause of action.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondents/State would further submit that the contention of the petitioner is misconceived and the petition is devoid of any merits. The occasion for grant of Kramonnatti to a government employee arises when the concerned government employee is found fit for being promoted but due to unavailability of vacancy of the promotional post, he/she could not be promoted vide administrative instruction/circular dated 19.4.1999 (Annexure R/1). The

¶38

6

¶39

petitioner was initially appointed on 14.3.1960 as Assistant Teacher on temporary basis in the school run by Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli on the fixed pay of Rs.50/- per month and vide order dated 19.8.1963 his services were absorbed in government service as Lower Division Teacher (LDT) on the pay of Rs.100 + 10/- per month. On 10.2.1982 he was granted first promotion to the post of Head Master of Primary School on the pay of Rs.545-925/- and second promotion granted on 3.9.1985 to the post of Upper Division Teacher on the pay scale of Rs.740-1180/- and after joining as UDT two increments under 22D of F.R. Rules were granted. Thereafter he was given third promotion to the post of Head Master of Middle School on 25.1.1996 on the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/- and further two increments under 22D of FR Rules were granted to him. He retired on 31.7.2002.

¶40

Learned counsel for the State submitted that as per Circular dated 19.4.1999 (Annexure R/1), if an employee has not received two higher pay scales during his service period, then he would be entitled for benefit of Kramonnatti, first after completion of 12 years of service and second after completion of 24 years of service. However, in the present case, the petitioner has received higher pay scale on every promotion and further second Kramonnatti is not granted on completion of requisite service period because he was further promoted second and third time during his service tenure and then retired on 31.7.2002. Therefore, the impugned order denying benefit of 2^nd Kramonnatti is in accordance with the rules and circulars applicable

¶41

7

¶42

and the present petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed on merits as well.

¶43

Opposing the aforesaid submission of the respondents/State, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his rejoinder that contention of the respondents that vide Annexure R/2 the petitioner was given first promotion on 10.2.1982 in the pay scale of Rs.545925/- is incorrect in view of table for fitment given in serial No.24 that a person holding scale of Rs.169-300/- will be fitted in the scale of Rs.545-925/- as LDT, therefore, it cannot be treated as promotion but his pay fixation only. Copy of the said fitment form under CG Wage Fixation Rules is filed Annexure P/9. Thus, it is incorrect statement by the State that the petitioner has got three promotions. As per decisions in the matters of KK Roy ( supra ) and Krishna Kant Choudhari Vs. State of MP, 2013(1) MPLJ 604 , upgradation benefit has to be given from the first appointment date. The relevant explanation given by the government published in page no. 412 of MP Wage Fixation Rule will also goes to show that Kramonnatti has to be given from the date of first appointment.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶45

It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner was working as Head Master and retired in the year 2002 as Head Master. As per

¶46

8

¶47

petitioner, during his service tenure benefit of 2nd Kramonnatti was not given to him even after completion of 24 years of service. He filed a writ petition i.e. WPS No.7641/2010 and the same was subsequently withdrawn by him with liberty to make a representation to consider his case in light of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, this Court disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn vide order dated 3.1.2011 with the aforesaid liberty.

¶48

The relevant portion of the impugned order (Annexure P/1) reads as under:

¶49

" सं�दቝኌ��तप्ቔ के�अनु�्ቅयेሰ �ቦኍ�ቝኌ�श्�म्बरनु�थቝኌेሰቦኍसं � �ቝኌनु��्ቈ पधा�नुप�ठके �ध्यቝኌेሰकेशा�ला�खु�टे�र�के� ቝኌ%त�य्ቅेሰ &्ቐቝኌतके� सं�ब�धाेሰ �जा�नुके�र� ቝኌनुम्नु�नु�सं�रहै*।

¶50

12 �्ቧ�के- ቝኌनुयቝኌेሰतसं � �प�र�केरनु�पर्ቚ थेሰ्ቅेሰ &्ቐቝኌत��तनुेሰ�नु ቝኌदनु��के 01.01.1986 ( सं�ला�गू0 है*) सं�ቝኌदय�जा�नु�के�शा�संनु�द�शाहै*। 02. ቝኌ%त�य्ቅेሰ &्ቐቝኌत 24 �्ቧ�केसं � �प�र�केरनु�पर�रिर्቗ ��तनुेሰ�नुቝኌदनु��के 19.04.1999 सं�ला�गू0 ቝኌकेय�गूय�है*। ቦኍ�ቝኌेሰቦኍके- सं � � 14.03.1960 सं� 31.07.2002 तकेके�लासं � � 41 �्ቧ� 15 ቝኌदनुहै&त�है*।सं � �के�लाके�द3र�नुइन्है�्ቚ थेሰ ए��ቝኌ%त�यद&नु&्ቅेሰ &्ቐቝኌत के�ला��नुहै7 ቝኌेሰला�है*।क्य9 ቝኌके��ቝኌदनु��के 03.09.1985 के& उच्चቦኍ�णी� ቝኌशाቌኋ�के�पदपरपद&्ቐतहै& च�के�थ�उन्है� 22 D के�ला�� 2 ��तनु��ቝኌ? ቝኌदय� जा�च�के�है*।जाबቝኌके्ቚ थेሰ्ቅेሰ &्ቐቝኌत 01.01.1986 सं�ला�गू0 है@आहै*।जिजासंके� ला��पद&्ቐቝኌतपरቝኌदय�जा�च�के�है*।

¶51

ቦኍ�ቝኌेሰቦኍ 25.01.1996 के& पद&्ቐतहै&केर��तनुेሰ�नु 5500-175-9000 पर ቝኌनुधा��रिरतकेरअ्ቚ�ला 1997 के& 22 D-2 ��तनु��ቝኌ? के�ला��ቝኌेሰलाच�के�थ�। जाबቝኌकेቝኌ%त�य्ቅेሰ &्ቐቝኌतय&जानु� 19.04.1999 सं�ला�गू0 है* इसंतरहैसं�ቝኌ%त�य &्ቐቝኌत��तनुयቝኌद��्ቚ धा�नुप�ठकेपदपरपद&्ቐतनुहै7 है@एहै&त�त& उन्है� ቝኌनुश्चयहै�ला��ቝኌदय�जा�त�।

¶52

9

¶53

अतC ቝኌकेसं��शा�संके-यसं � केके& 19.04.1999 के& 24 �्ቧ�सं � �प0र� केरनु�परयቝኌदቝኌ%त�यपद&्ቐत��तनुेሰ�नुቝኌेሰलाच�के�है*।उन्है�ቝኌ%त�य्ቅेሰ &्ቐቝኌत ��तनुके- प�्ቔत�नुहै7 है*।क्य9ቝኌकेउसं��तनुेሰ�नुके& प�च�के�है*।"

¶54

It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was promoted in the year 1996 and was getting higher pay scale. It is not case of the petitioner that he was on the same post without promotion for the last 12 years. Annexure P/8 filed by the petitioner is Time-bound Advancement Scheme of the government and its para 3.1 (d) ([k) (x) (?k) being relevant is reproduced hereunder:

¶55

"(3) प�्ቔत�के�ቝኌनुब�धानुए��शातDC-

¶56

� 3.1 ቝኌकेसं�शा�संके-यसं � के%�र�धा�रिरतपदके�जिलाय�ቝኌनुयतउच्च��तनुेሰ�नुेሰ उसंशा�संके-यसं � केके&्ቅेሰ &नुतቝኌकेय�जा�नु�ቝኌनुम्नुजिलाजिखुतशात9 के� अध्यधा�नुरहै�गू�

¶57

(के) सं�ब�जिधातशा�संके-यसं � केके& पद&्ቐቝኌतके�ेሰ �न्यजिसं?�न्त9 ए��ቝኌ��गू�य ቝኌनुयेሰ9 के�अनु�सं�रपद&्ቐቝኌतके�य&ग्यहै&नु�च�ቝኌहैय�।

¶58

(खु) शा�संके-यसं � केके& पहैला�्ቅेሰ &्ቐቝኌतप�नु�के- प�्ቔत�उसं�दशा�ेሰ �है&गू� जाबቝኌकेउसं�प0��ेሰ � 12 �्ቧ�केसं � �प0र�केरला�नु�पर��के&ई पद&्ቐቝኌत/ &नुቝኌतनुहै7्ቚ �्቎ है@ईहै*। उद�हैरणी- एकेቝኌनुम्नुቦኍ�णी�जिलाቝኌपके 6 �्ቧ�के�सं � �के�लाके�पश्च�तH उच्चቦኍ�णी� जिलाቝኌपकेके�पदपरपद&नुतहै@आ।उसं�केቝኌIके� 2(1) ��ቝኌणी�तत�जिलाके�के� स्तम्� (1) के�संरला्ቅेሰ ��के (5) ��तनुेሰ�नुरुपय� 515-800 के�संेሰቌኋस्तम्� (4) �बत�य��तनुेሰ�नुरुपय� 635-950 के�ला��उ्ቈ�ቝኌस्थቝኌतेሰ �द�यहै&गू� जाबቝኌकेउच्चቦኍ�णी�जिलाቝኌपकेके�पदपर 14 �्ቧ�के�सं � �के�लाेሰ �उसं�औरके&ई पद&्ቐቝኌतनुहै7 ቝኌेሰला�है&।

¶59

(गू) द0संर�्ቅेሰ &्ቐቝኌतप�नु�के- प�्ቔत�शा�संके-यसं � के9 के& उसं�दशा�ेሰ �है&गू� जाबቝኌकेप0��ेሰ �के��लाउन्है�एकेहै�पद&्ቐቝኌत्ቚ �्቎ है@ईहै&, औरऐसं�

¶60

10

¶61

पद&्ቐቝኌत/क े &नुቝኌतके� ब�दके� आठ�्ቧO�के& ቝኌेሰला�केरउसंके- ቝኌनुरन्तर शा�संके-यसं � � 20 �्ቧ�केहै& च�के- है&।जिजानुशा�संके-यक े �च�रिरय9 के& �र�ቝኌ�केቝኌनुय�ቝኌP के�पदसं�द& पद&्ቐቝኌतहै& च�के- हैQ, उन्है�इसंय&जानु�के� अन्तगू�त्ቅेሰ &्ቐतቝኌकेय�जा�नु�के- प�्ቔत�नुहै7 है&गू�।. (घ) एकेय�द& पद&्ቐቝኌतቝኌेሰलाप�नु�पर��य&जानु�के�अनुगू�तक े �च�रिरय9 के& &नुቝኌत dk ला��्ቚ �्቎ है&गू�ए�� ,dkadh (Isolated) पद tgka पद&्ቐቝኌतके� के&ईअ�संरउपलाब्धानुहै7 है*, उनु्ቚ केरणी9ेሰ ��क े �च�रिरय9 के& इसंय&जानु� के�अन्तगू�त्ቅेሰ &्ቐቝኌतके- प�्ቔत�है&गू�।"

¶62

As per the petitioner, his services were regularized in 1963 and in the year 1975 he completed 12 years of service, therefore, he is entitled for one Kramonnatti. In the impugned order it is clearly observed that the circular related to higher pay scale was issued on 1.1.1986 and prior to that on 3.9.1985 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher and after that promoted to the post of Head Master on 25.1.1986 whereas second higher pay scale scheme came into force since 19.4.1999. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner's case is quite different from the case of R.S. Verma in WP No.2805/2002 who was not given any promotion during his whole service period. Hence the order passed by this Court in the matter of RS Verma (supra) being distinguishable on facts is of no help to the present petitioner. The competent authority duly considered the representation of the petitioner in light of relevant circulars of the State Government and found him not entitled for the benefit of 2nd Kramonnatti.

¶63

11

¶64

For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no good reason to interfere with the impugned order (Annexure P/1). The writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶65

Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶66

MOHD Digitallysigned by AKHTAR MOHD KHAN AKHTARKHAN Khan

Vishambharnath Mishra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishambharnath Mishra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar Mahilang Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ejaj Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anuj Kumar Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Narayan Vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

Bhim Prasad Vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

Moolchand Vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.