SUNIL BARVE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming kramonnati / time bound promotion pay-scale on completion of 10-20 years and 12-24 years of service. The case of the petitioner is that, he was initially appointed on the post of Choukidar on contractual basis in the year 1994. In the year 2004, he was engaged under the work charged and contingency paid establishment and in terms of various judgments of this Court he is entitled for Kramonnati pay-scale. The stand of the respondents is that since the petitioner is working under the work-charged contingency paid establishment, the scheme of Kramonnati as contained in the circular dated 17.03.1999 and 19.04.1999 is not applicable to the petitioners and, therefore, the case for grant of Krammonati pay-scale deserves to be rejected.

(2.) It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the present case is covered by the judgment delivered in the case of Teju Lal Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors., reported in ILR (2009) MP 1326 decided on 23.01.2009. Undisputedly, the petitioner was appointed in the 1994 and he has certainly completed the number of years as required for grant of time bound promotion.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is found that the issue involved in the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the matter of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) wherein this Court in the light of the same circulars has considered the issue of grant of krammonat pay scale to the work charged and contingency paid employee and on placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in the matter of K.L. Asre Vs. State passed on 7/11/2005 in Writ Petition (s) 1070/2003 has held as under: