SAROJ SONI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that after granting second Kramonnati since her pay was fixed in a higher pay scale, on account of grant of regular promotion the petitioner could not be denied the higher pay scale. Since she was found fit for grant of promotion, she should have been promoted in a next higher pay scale which has not been done and despite making recommendations by the Joint Director Public Instructions, Jabalpur, since the claim of the petitioner is not being considered, she is required to approach this Court. It is contended that the petitioner who was initially appointed as Lower Division Teacher (hereinafter referred to as Assistant Teacher) on 27.09.1969 was entitled to be granted the benefit of Kramonnati w.e.f. the date she has completed 12 years of service on one post, in one pay scale without any promotion. However, instead of granting the Kramonnati from the date she has completed 12 years of service, the said benefit was extended w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Later on the petitioner was granted the benefit of 2nd Kramonnati w.e.f. 19.04.1999, but the actual benefit of grant of said kramonnati was not extended to her from the date the same was made available. Subsequently, it was directed that the petitioner will get the benefit of second Kramonnati w.e.f. 01.08.2004, which order was not justified in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne Vs. State of M.P. & others) decided on 26.1.2007, and therefore, in a petition filed by her such an order was quashed. However, the arrears have not been paid to her. Subsequently, when the petitioner was promoted, her salary was reduced in the pay scale which in fact was made available to the petitioner in first Kramonnati and, therefore, she has suffered loss of emoluments while in service and even after retirement as her pension is not revised properly. In view of this, it is contended that the respondents are liable to be commanded to compute correct dues giving the benefit of Kramonnatis, grant the benefit in all respect and on promotion fixation of her salary in the higher pay scale and to work out all the arrears of salary which be paid to the petitioner in one installment with interest.

(2.) The respondents in return have contended that the entire claim made by the petitioner is misconceived. In fact, initially the petitioner was appointed in the pay scale which was revised to a pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-. The Kramonnati pay scale given to the petitioner was revised to Rs.5000-8000/-. The petitioner was given the second Kramonnati in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-. When she was promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher, her salary was required to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- and in terms of the circular of the State Government the pay protection was to be granted. This has been done and after coming into force of revised pay scale, the salary of the petitioner is rightly fixed in the pay scale of Rs.9,300-34,800+ 3,200/- grade pay. This fixation has duly been approved, therefore, no wrong is committed by the respondents. It is thus, contended that the claim made by the petitioner in the petition is wholly misconceived.

(3.) By way of filing a rejoinder, the petitioner has contended that she was to be given the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/- which is revised to the pay scale of Rs.9,300-34,800 +grade pay of Rs.4,200. This particular aspect is not considered by the respondents. Had she been given the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/-, she would have been fixed in the said pay scale in appropriate manner and would not have been put to loss of emoluments. Thus, it is contended that the stand taken by the respondents is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. The petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition.