SUREKHA MOGHE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE similar questions of facts and law are involved in these matters, with the consent of parties, matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order.

(2.) IN these cases, the petitioners became entitled to get benefit of second kramonnati from different dates of 2005. For the reasons which are solely attributable to the respondents, the D.P.C., Screening Committee etc. were not done before 2008. In the year 2008, the respondents found that the petitioners were not given any promotion within 24 years and, therefore, by order dated 7.1.2008, granted them second kramonnati w.e.f. different dates of 2005. However, before this order could be implemented, the petitioners were found eligible for promotion and were directed to be promoted on the post of Lecturer from different dates of 2007. The kramonnati benefits directed to be granted from 2005 were not actually extended in favour of the petitioners. The singular ground and reason for not extending the same is that the petitioners were promoted in the year 2007 and did not join the promotional post.

(3.) SHRI Sharma submits that the petitioners became entitled to get second kramonnati w.e.f 2005 and were given promotion in 2007 and, therefore, if promotional opportunity is not granted within 24 years, any subsequent opportunity cannot take away prior benefit which accrued in 2005.