You are on page 1of 10

SINGLE BENCH SERVICE MATTER

W.P. NO.

/2014(S)

Date of Presentation 31/01/2014


BEFORE THE HON. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE.
Shri Gopal Mandloi S/o Shri Siku Mandloi,
Age 62 years, Occupation-Service (Retired),
R/o: Janpad Panchayat Parisar, Gram Seagaon,
Tehsil:-Seagaon,
District Khargone (M.P.)

...

Petitioner

Vs.
1.

State of Madhya Pradesh


Through Principal Secretary,
Tribal Welfare Department,
Vallabh Bhawan, Mantralaya,
Bhopal (M.P.)

2.

The Collector,
Tribal Welfare Department,
District Khargone(M.P.)
3. The Block Development Officer
Tribal Welfare Department
Segaon, District Khargone (M.P.)
4. The Chief Executive Officer
Zila Panchayat
District Khargone (M.P.)
5. The Additional Assistant Development Officer
Janpad Panchayat
Segaon, District Khargone (M.P.)
...

Respondents

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE


CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
1.

PARTICULARS OF THE ORDERS AGAINST WHICH THE


PETITION IS MADE:The present petition is being submitted by the
petitioner,

claiming

the

relief

that

the

respondents be directed to consider, sanction


and pay the Krammonnati pay-scale of Rs. 750945 and its revised corresponding pay scale
from

the

date

of

petitioners

entitled

i.e.

from 01.08.2004 (by calculating from 01.08.1992


+

12

years),

as

per

G.A.D.

circulars

dated

17-03-99 and 19-04-99 and as per the judgment


dated 23-01-09 passed in the matter of Tejulal
Yadav

v/s

State

of

M.P.

&

Ors.

within

the

specified time and the respondents be further


directed to pay its arrears to the petitioner
along with an interest @ 12% per annum, within
specified time.
2.

The petitioner declares that no proceedings on


the same subject matter has been previously instituted
in any Court/Authority/Tribunal.

3.

The petitioner declares that no other alternative


efficacious

remedy

available

to

him,

except

to

approach this Honble Court for seeking the relief, as


claimed

in

the

writ

petition
2

and

the

petitioner

further declares that he has availed all the statutory


and other remedies available to him.
4.

The

petitioner

submits

that

looking

to

the

chronological facts, dates and events submitted in the


succeeding paragraphs of the writ petition, there is
no delay in filing of the present writ petition.
5.

FACTS OF THE CASE:5.1

That, the petitioner is citizen of India. He


was

appointed

05.07.1985
Service.
dated

in

as
the

department

(Photocopy

05.07.1985

Khalaasi/Chowkidar

of

is

the

in

Contingency

appointment

enclosed

and

on

order

marked

as

Annexure P/1).
5.2

That, on 12.09.1994 respondent no. 3 forwarded


the case of petitioner to respondent no. 2 for
regularization.

5.2

That, on 09.01.1996 the respondent no. 3 has


again

by

letter

dated

05.01.1996

recommended

the case of petitioner for regularisation.


5.3

That, on 05.12.1997 the respondent no. 3 issued


a letter by which the regular pay-scale of Rs.
750-945 was sanctioned as per G.A.D. circular
dated 15.11.1997 from 01.08.1992. (Photocopy of
the

order

respondent

dated
no.

05.12.1997
is

Annexure P/2).
3

enclosed

issued
and

by

marked

the
as

5.3

That,

the

attained
and

petitioner

age

has

of

submits

that

superannuation

been

discharged

on

he

has

30.06.2013

from

services

accordingly. (Photocopy of the discharge order


dated

22.05.2013

is

enclosed

and

marked

as

Annexure P/3).
5.4

That, the petitioner submits that the present


writ petition for non-grant of Krammonat PayScale to the petitioner as per policy dated
17.03.1999/19.04.1999
Kramonnati

policy

(Photocopy

dated

of

the

17.03.1999/19.04.1999

is enclosed and marked as Annexure P/4).


5.5

That, the petitioner submits that as per the


aforesaid Scheme/Circular (P/4), the petitioner
is

entitled

for

Kramonnat

Pay-scale

as

on

01.08.2004 i.e. on completion of 12 years, as


the petitioner has been granted regular payscale

since

01.08.1992

itself,

but

unfortunately and for the reasons best known to


the respondents, the case of the petitioner for
grant of Kramonnati Pay-Scale as per Kramonnati
Policy

(P/4)

has

not

been

taken

into

consideration and even the Kramonnati pay-scale


has not been sanctioned on completion of 12
years regular service i.e. since 01.08.2004.
5.8

That, the petitioner submits that as per the


aforesaid

policy/circular

last

years

ACRs

are required to be taken into consideration as


on 01.08.2004, meaning thereby that the ACRs
for the period 1998-99 to 2003-04 are required
to be considered for the aforesaid purpose and
it is also a settled principle of law that uncommunicated adverse remarks, if any, cannot be
taken

into

consideration

for

the

purpose

of

denying the grant of Kramonnat pay-scale.


5.9

That,

the

petitioner

submits

that

entire

service record of the petitioner is blotless.


At

no

point

of

proceedings

have

petitioner

and

time

been
in

any

disciplinary

initiated

such

against

circumstances

the
the

petitioner is entitled for the Kramonnat payscale and its corresponding revised pay-scale
along with its arrears. Since it has not been
so

considered

petitioner,
submitting
this

and
the

Honble

sanctioned
therefore

present

Court

on

the

writ
the

paid

to

petitioner

petition
following

the
is

before
amongst

other grounds:-

6.

GROUNDS:-

(6.1) Because, after including the petitioner as and


after

treating

the

petitioner

as

contingency

paid employee, the petitioner is entitled for


5

Kramonnati (time bound promotion) as per the


decision

rendered

by

this

Honble

court

on

23.01.2009 in the matter of Tejulal Yadav v.


State of M.P. & Ors. Reported in ILR 2009 MP
1326 which is based upon the judgment of the
Honble Apex Court in which it has been held
that even the contingency paid employees and
work charged employees also entitled for the
benefit of kramonnati. In such circumstances,
the impugned order dated 13.10.2004 (P/3) which
is running contrary to the aforesaid judgment
deserves to be quashed by this Honble court
(Photocopy

of

judgment

dated

23.01.2009

is

enclosed and marked as Annexure P/5).


(6.2) Because, the respondent did not consider that
the petitioner is entitled for krammonati pay
scale as per government policy dated 17.03.1999
and

19.04.1999,

according

to

which

the

petitioner is entitled for krammonati pay scale


on completion of 12 years and the petitioner
has been given a regular payscale vide order
dated 05.12.1997 w.e.f. 01.08.92 and in such
circumstances the petitioner is also entitled
for

kramonnati

payscale

from

01.08.2004

on

completion of 12 years and since at no point of


time the petitioner has faced any D.E. and the
petitioners

service

record

is

blotless

and

since at no point of time any adverse ACR has


6

ever been communicated to the petitioner and


therefore,

the

petitioner

is

entitled

for

krammonati pay scale.


(6.3)

Because,

the

petitioners

case

for

promotion

has also not been considered by the respondent


for the reasons best known to them.
(6.4)

Because,

the

respondents

have

not

paid

the

arrears till date.


(6.5)

Because, the petitioner is also entitled to be


regularized on the post as per the judgment
rendered in the matter of State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi.

7.

RELIEFS SOUGHT:A/

The respondents be directed to consider/sanction


and pay the Kramonnati pay scale for 750-945 and
its revised corresponding pay- scale from the
date of the petitioners entitlement i.e. from
01.08.2004 (by calculating from 01.08.1992 plus
12

years)

respondents

within
be

specified

further

time

directed

to

and

the

pay

its

arrears to the petitioner along with interest


calculated @ 12% per annum, within a specified
time.
B.

To

award

costs

of

this

petition

respondents to the petitioner.

from

the

C.

Any other relief, which this Honble Court may


deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case in favour of the petitioner against the
respondent.

8.

INTERIM ORDER, IF ANY, PRAYED FOR:Nil.

9.

The petitioner submits that at present, except


the documents as submitted above, the petitioner
is not in possession, power and control of any
other documents, relating to the subject matter
of this writ petition.

10.

The petitioner submits that he has no notice of


lodging a caveat by the respondent and no such
notice of caveat has been received.

Indore
Date

Submitted by,
31/01/2014
(RAHUL A. SETHI)
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER.

Typed in my Office,
(RAHUL A. SETHI)
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER.

SINGLE BENCH SERVICE MATTER


W.P. NO.

/2014 (S)

Date of Presentation

0 /01/2014

BEFORE THE HON. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH


BENCH AT INDORE
Gopal Mandloi

......

Petitioner

Vs.
State of M.P. & others

.....

Respondents

INDEX
Sr.NO

Description of Documents

Annexure

.
1.
2.
3.

Writ Petition under Article 226


of the Constitution of India
Affidavit
Photocopy of appointment order

Page
No.
1 to 8
9

P/1

dated 15-07-85
4.

7.
8.

09.

11.
12.

Photocopy of the order dated


05.12.1997
issued
by
the
respondent no. 2
Photocopy of the discharge
order dated 22.05.2013
Photocopy of the Kramonnati
policy
dated
17.03.1999/19.04.1999
Photocopy of judgment dated
23.01.2009

P/2

P/3
P/4

P/5

Vakalatnama
Stamp

Indore,
Date:
07/01/2013

Submitted by

(Rahul A. Sethi)
Counsel for Petitioner

SINGLE BENCH SERVICE MATTER


W.P. NO.
9

/2014 (S)

Date of Presentation

31/01/2014

BEFORE THE HON. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH


BENCH AT INDORE
Gopal Mandloi

......

Petitioner

Vs.
State of M.P. & others

.....

Respondents

LIST OF DOCUMENTS
Sr.NO
.
P/1
P/2

Description of Documents
Photocopy of
dated 15-07-85

appointment

order

Photocopy

the

order

dated

by

the

05.12.1997
P/3
P/4

P/5

PG NO.

of

issued

respondent no. 2
Photocopy
of
the

discharge

order dated 22.05.2013


Photocopy of the Kramonnati
policy
dated
17.03.1999/19.04.1999
Photocopy of judgment dated
23.01.2009

Indore,
Date:
07/01/2013

Submitted by
(Rahul A. Sethi)
Counsel for Petitioner

10