RAM SWARUP PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition challenging the action of respondents in not granting him the pay-scale of 1640-2900 (revised 5500-9000) from due date in consonance with Annexure-P/4 and the kramonnati scheme dated 19/04/1999. The rejection order Annexure-R/1 dated 03/01/2010 is also called in question in this petition. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:-

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 24/03/1958. On completion of 12 years of service, the benefit of first kramonnati was granted to him w.e.f. 01/01/1986 by order dated 05/02/1991 Annexure-P/1. The petitioner was promoted from the post of Assistant Teacher to the post of Headmaster by order dated 25/08/1998 Annexure-P/3. The pay-scale of Assistant Teacher was 1400-2640 and the promotional post of Headmaster aforesaid carries the same pay-scale. The Finance Department issued a circular dated 23/08/1997, which reads as under:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... On the strength of this circular and the kramonnati policy dated 19/04/1999 Annexure-R/2, it is prayed that the petitioner should be given the scale of 1640-2900 (revised 5500-9000) on completion of 12 years of service from the date he was placed in the scale of 1400-2640. By placing reliance on Annexure-P/3, it is stated that the District Education Officer rightly decided to extend the said benefit to the petitioner on completion of 12 years in the scale of 1400-2640, but the same is sought to be withdrawn by Annexure-R/1 dated 03/01/2010. Shri Anil Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said action is bad in law.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.