1 Reserved on 27.03.2025 Pronouncement on 03.09.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1791 of 2012 1 - Damrudhar Trivedi S/o Late Dhhaneshwar Prasad Trivedi Aged About 46 Years R/o Panjari Plot, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mahendra Kumar Trivedi S/o Late Dhhaneshwar Prasad Trivedi Aged About 44 Years R/o Panjari Plot, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Girdhar Prasad Trivedi S/o Late Dhhaneshwar Prasad Trivedi Aged About 42 Years R/o Panjari Plot, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Dks Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur 492001 Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Education Officer, Raigarh District Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput C A V Order This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs : 2 (I) That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the writ petition and to decide the petitioner’s grievances in the interest of justice. (ii) That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order, directing the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to release the 2nd Krammonnati benefit of petitioner’s late husband w.e.f. 19.04.1999 and to pay arrears thereof. (iii) That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass any other order or direction deem fit and proper and in the interest of justice. 2. Initially the wife of the deceased employee has filed this petition. During the pendency of this writ petition she passed away hence the present petitioners were brought on record. 3. The brief facts as projected in the Writ Petition is that the original Petitioner's husband namely D.P. Trivedi was appointed as UDT on 10.07.1976 at AVR Higher Secondary School, Badenavapara and promoted as Lecturer on 01.04.1974 on the same School. Vide Office Order dated 02.09.1982 the Government has taken over the said School under its control and original Petitioner's husband was absorbed as UDT in the Pay Scale of Rs. 246-460/- w.e.f. 16.01.1982 Vide Order Dated 22.02.1983 the original Petitioner's husband was absorbed as Lecture w.e.f. 16.01.1982 in the same School in the Pay Scale of Rs. 350-600/-. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.10.1990 the Petitioner's husband was granted Ist Kramonnati benefit on account of completion of 12 year's service and subsequently he was granted Sr. Pay Scale of Rs. 2000-3500/-. That, Respondent-State vide its Circular dated 14.01.2003 introduced Kramonnati Benefit to all its employees to grant two Higher Pay Scale Benefits on completion of 12/24 years service w.e.f. 31.03.2003. However, while working as Lecturer in the revised Pay Scale, the Petitioner's husband retired from service on account of attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, vide order dated 23.06.2007/01.08.2003 the Respondents Sanctioned 2nd Kramonnati to the original Petitioner's husband, on account of completion of 24 years service, but the due benefits of the Pay Scale of Rs. 7500- 3 12000/- was not released. After waiting much, the original Petitioner's husband passed away on 22.06.2010, the Respondents granted family pension to the original Petitioner, but neither her late husband nor the original Petitioner have been paid the benefit of 2nd Kramonnati in Pay Scale of Rs. 7500-12000/- so far. 4. Return on behalf of the respondent/State has been filed and it is submitted that a bare perusal of the Policy annexed as Annexure P/11 clearly shows that the government servants who have not got any promotion /kramonnati/selection grade pay during their entire service period, would be entitled for two higher pay scale after continuing 12 years or 24 years of services, despite the initial pay scale on which they were initially appointed, meaning thereby that the employees who have got two higher pay scales or more than 2 promotions during the service career would not get the monetary benefit of the 2nd time bound promotion (Kramonnati) scheme. Thus, it is clear that an employee who has received two or more than 2 promotions or two higher pay scales during his service career, will not be entitled for the time bound promotion (Kramonnati). The petitioner has therefore stated in her petition that the husband of the petitioner has only been promoted once during his entire service career in the year 1983 and thereafter the first kramonnati has been granted on 31/10/1990 only, thus, the husband of the original petitioner is entitled for the 2nd time bound promotion (Kramonnati) which has been granted to him but according to the same, the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000/- is not releasing to her by the respondents/State. 5. Return on behalf of the respondent/State also reflect that the petitioner has made absolutely incorrect and misleading averments and has pleaded incorrect facts in the petition. The husband of the original petitioner, Infact, was Initially appointed in the year 1967 as UTD and thereafter, was promoted to the post of Lecturer vide order dated 22/02/1983 and 4 thereafter vide order dated 31/10/1990, the first kramonnati was granted to the husband of the original petitioner on account of completion of 12 years services. Thus, the husband of the original petitioner has been granted higher pay scale twice during his entire service career despite the initial pay scale on which he was appointed initially. The relevant extract of the service book of the husband of the petitioner demonstrating this fact is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R/1. Thus, in light of the narrations as stated above it becomes apparent that the husband of the original petitioner has been granted higher pay scale for two times in his entire service career and therefore despite the order dated 23/06/2007 (Annexure P/6) and 24/09/2007 (Annexure P/7) by which 2nd Kramonatti was granted after 24 years of services, the original petitioner is not at all entitled for the monetary benefits of the 2nd time bound promotion (Kramonnati) scheme. The original petitioner has pleaded incorrect facts and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent themselves released office orders dated 23.06.2007 and 24.03.2007 and sanctioned 2nd Kramonnati benefit in the revised pay scale of Rs. 7500- 12000/-, but no monetary benefits was paid to the original petitioner or her late husband. He submits that the respondent deviated from their own assurance and commitment and circulars issued by the State Government time to time. He further submits that the respondent has not advanced any reason, for causing delay in final release of 2nd Krammonnati benefits to petitioner husband and to revise pension/family pension of the basis salary. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/State made submissions in consonance with the return filed it. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care. 5 9. The question before this Court as to whether the husband of the original petitioner was entitled to the 2nd time bound pay scale or not? 10. The case of the original petitioner is that her husband was initially appointed in the year 1967 in AVR Higher Secondary School in Badenavapara as UDT and thereafter was promoted in the school in the year 1974 as lecturer. Thereafter, he was absorbed in government service as lecturer. As he was not given any promotion first time bound pay scale was granted to him w.e.f. 22.01.1986 vide order dated 31.10.1990 (Annexure P-3) after completing 12 years of service. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.08.2007 (Annexure P-6) he was sanctioned with 2nd time bound pay scale on completion of 24 years of service. However, actual benefit was not given to him. According to the petitioner after being absorbed in government service as lecturer he worked through out as lecturer. 11. According to the State the husband of original petitioner was absorbed as UDT and vide order dated 22.02.1983 he was promoted to the post of lecturer. Further case of the respondent/State is that the benefit of 2nd time bound pay scale is not available to these employees who have got higher pay scales or two promotions during the service tenure. According to State as the husband of the original petitioner was promoted on the post of lecturer in the year 1974 and was granted first time bound pay scale, second time bound pay scale cannot be granted. 12. There is no dispute to the fact the husband of the original petitioner was initially appointed as UTD and later on promoted on the post of lecturer in the year 1974. Initially he was absorbed in the government as UTD (Annexure P-1) later on vide Annexure P-2 he was absorbed as lecturer w.e.f. 16.01.1982. The respondent/State is trying to project the Annexure P-2 as the promotion order of the husband of the petitioner as lecturer. This is opinion of this Court is not correct. The service book of the husband of the petitioner (Annexure P-13 & R-1) indicates that he was promoted as 6 lecturer vide secretary’s order 702 dated 30.03.1974. On that day the school of the husband of the original petitioner was neither taken over by the State government nor he was absorbed in the government service. The husband of the petitioner was born in the government service w.e.f. 16.01.1982 when his school was taken over by State Government and his service was absorbed in the government. 13. Therefore, it is quite vivid that since the absorption of the husband of the original petitioner he remained as a lecturer. Therefore, he was granted first time bound pay scale and his second time bound pay scale was sanctioned. As a result the writ petition is allowed and the petitioners are entitled to receive the monetary benefit of second time bound pay scale as sanction vide Annexure P-6. Consequence to follow. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan