KRISHNA KANT CHOUDHARI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that despite the grant of Kramonnati, the petitioner is not extended the benefit of the same inasmuch as his salary has not been revised in the Kramonnati pay scale and that the second Kramonnati, as was available to him, has not been extended. Despite making representations since the same were not considered, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to be filed. It is contended by the petitioner that initially he was appointed on the post of Coup Guard in the Forest Department of Govt. of Madhya Pradesh on 13-10-1976. Later on he was regularized w.e.f. 1-1-1977 on the post of Forest Guard. The order in this respect was issued and later on the petitioner was given the forest training and was regularized w.e.f. 1-4-1981 as trained Forest Guard. The State Government has formulated a policy commonly known as Kramonnati Yojna and circulated the same vide circular dated 17-3-1999/19-4-1999. However, despite rendering the services for a period of 12 years on the very same post in the very same pay scale, the benefit of Kramonnati was not extended to the petitioner. There was discrepancy in maintaining the seniority of the petitioner and he was lowered down in the seniority list against which the representation was made by the petitioner. It is contended that instead of considering the representation of the petitioner in appropriate manner, it was communicated that the petitioner has been treated as Forest Guard w.e.f. 1-4-1986 and this is how the petitioner's seniority was changed. Further there was no cogent reason shown as to how the seniority of the petitioner was changed because of change of his date of regularization. This being so, the petitioner has claimed the relief to the effect that the respondents be commanded to correct the seniority of the petitioner in appropriate manner and to grant him first Kramonnati w.e.f. 1-1-1989 and second Kramonnati w.e.f. 1-1-2001 and to pay him all the consequential benefits after revision of his pay with interest.

(2.) Upon notices of the writ petition, the respondents have filed the return and they have contended that the case of the petitioner was considered for regularization. On availability of the post of Forest Guard, the petitioner was treated to be regularized w.e.f. 1-4-1986. The period spent by the petitioner in service as Coup Guard was not to be counted for the purposes of seniority and accordingly, from the date of regularization, the seniority of the petitioner was properly maintained and he has been shown in the appropriate place in the gradation seniority list. It is contended that the benefit of Kramonnati was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 11-3-2008 and the said benefit is extended w.e.f. 19-4-1999 in terms of the scheme made by the State Government. The petitioner would be paid the benefit of grant of first Kramonnati. Nothing more can be granted to the petitioner and as such the petition is misconceived and deserve dismissal.

(3.) By filing a rejoinder, the petitioner has contended that in terms of the decision taken by the State Government way back, the posts of Coup Guards were converted into the posts of Forest Guards. Those who were working as Coup Guards were directed to be treated as Forest Guards. Those who were untrained, were required to be sent for forest training. At any rate, benefit of seniority was not to be denied to the petitioner. It is contended that the similar issue was looked into by this Court in W.P. No. 9271/2008 decided on 18-7-2012 and in view of this, a direction was given to decide the claim of seniority of such persons. If that is done, it would be clear that petitioner is much above in the gradation list and would be entitled to the promotion on the next post. No additional return has been filed to controvert such a stand taken by the petitioner in the rejoinder.