KAMLA GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is not aggrieved by any particular order, but is aggrieved by illegal and arbitrary inaction on the part of the Respondents in not extending her benefit of Selection Grade Pay Scale of Rs.3700.005700/ - (revised to Rs.12,000.0018,300/- w.e.f. 1/1/1996) w.e.f. 4/3/1998, in accordance with the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep S. Panwar v. State of M.P. and Others [W.P. No. 2020/2016, decided on 4/10/2018] as implemented by Respondent No. 1 - department by issuing clarificatory Circular dtd. 13/12/2019 read with earlier Circular dtd. 11/10/1999 and 9/11/1999. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the consequential inaction on the part of the Respondents in not granting the petitioner benefit of Pay Band IV i.e. placement in the pay scale of Rs.37,400.0067,000/- + AGP 9,000/- w.e.f, 1/1/2006, after completion of 3 years of service in the selection grade pay scale or w.e.f. 1/1/2006 whichever is later, in view of the provisions of Circular dtd. 14/9/2012 issued by the Respondent No. 1 department.

(2.) The respondents have filed the reply and in para 2, they stated that the petitioner is entitled for selection grade pay scale as the same was due to him with effect from 1/4/2007, but in the year 2007 the ACR of the petitioner was "Ga" category, and, therefore, the Committee has not recommended for the same, but the same has already been given to her with effect from 1/4/2010. It is further stated in para 4 of the return that the Committee had considered her case for grant of selection grade pay from 1998, but the petitioner was not found entitled for the same as the ACRS of the relevant period were of Average category.

(3.) Counsel for petitioner disputes the aforesaid assertion made in para 2 and para 4 of the return and submits that from Annexure R/1, it is pellucid that the petitioner has been sanctioned selection grade pay scale with effect from 1/4/2004 whereas petitioner was entitled for the same with effect from 4/3/1998. It is further submitted that as per the said order, the IV pay band has been sanctioned to her with effect from 1/4/2010 instead of 1/1/2006. In the Annexure R/1 it is stated that IV pay band had become due to the petitioner on 1/4/2007 but the same was not paid to her because her ACR of year 2007 was of "Ga" category.