1 2025:CGHC:44728 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8090 of 2023 1 - Smt. Kanaklata Shrivastava W/o Shri Premchand Shrivatava Aged About 78 Years R/o Kanak Bhawan Shanti Vihar Coloney, Dangania, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Schedule Caste Welfare, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Nava -Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Nava - Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Accountant General For State Of Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For State For Respondent : : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02.09.2025 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 1. This petition has been filed by the the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs :- 10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction commanding authorities to produce the entire record pertaining to the petitioner's case. 10.2. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate the impugned order writ/order/direction quashing 09.12.2022 (Annexure P-1,) since the same is arbitrary, illegal and factually incorrect. 10.3. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction commanding Respondent no. 1 to grant time bound enhance pay scale to the petitioner in accordance with the Kramonnati Scheme of 17.03.1999, where the petitioner would be entitled for two kramonnati and the consequential benefits arising there from may also be directed to be conferred to the petitioner. 10.4. That the Hon'ble Court may futher be pleased to revise the pension of the petitioner in consequent of the aforesaid benefit of the krammonati conferred upon her. 10.5. Any other relief(s), direction(s), which Hon'ble the Court deems fit, and proper, in the circumstances of the case. 2. Facts of the present case in brief are that the petitioner is a retired government employee who superannuated from the 3 services of Respondent No.1 with effect from 31.08.2007 .It is submitted that the then undivided State of Madhya Pradesh, vide orders dated 17.03.1999 and 19.04.1999, introduced a policy granting two assured time-bound pay-scale enhancements (Kramonnati) to employees who had not received any increase in their pay-scale by way of promotion, increment, selection grade, or upgradation, during their service. In accordance with the said policy, the petitioner became eligible for the grant of a higher pay scale with effect from June 1996. The petitioner had earlier approached this Hon’ble Court by filing Writ Petition (S) No. 2378/2008, which was allowed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 12.09.2019. However, despite the clear directions contained in the said order, the respondents failed to adjudicate the petitioner’s claim in its true spirit. Consequently, the petitioner was constrained to initiate Contempt Petition (C) No. 818/2020 before this Hon’ble Court. Pursuant to the contempt proceedings, the respondent department ultimately issued the impugned communication dated 09.12.2022, which was also placed on record in the contempt matter. However, through the said communication, the respondent authorities rejected the petitioner’s claim for Kramonnati, primarily on the ground that the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Principal vide order dated 28.06.1984, and was again promoted in the year 2007, wherein the pay drawn by the petitioner exceeded the 4 pay-scale envisaged under the second Kramonnati. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforementioned reasoning, the respondents denied the petitioner the benefit of both Kramonnati pay-scale enhancements, giving rise to the present challenge to the impugned communication dated 09.12.2022. Hence this petition. 3. The petitioner respectfully submits that the impugned order dated 09.12.2022 is arbitrary, factually incorrect, and legally unsustainable, having been passed in haste and without proper appreciation of the petitioner’s service records or the binding directions of this Hon’ble Court. The rejection of the petitioner’s claim under the Kramonnati Scheme of 1999 is based on an erroneous assumption that the petitioner was promoted to the pay-scale of ₹8000–275–13500 in 1984, whereas in reality, she was only appointed as Officiating Principal without any financial or promotional benefit, as clearly recorded in the official orders. Throughout her career, the petitioner did not receive any promotion or pay-scale upgradation, except in 2007, just prior to her retirement, and thus became fully entitled to both time-bound Kramonnati benefits. The respondents’ failure to grant this benefit, despite a clear direction in WPS No. 2378/2008, and their evasive conduct in contempt proceedings, including contradictory affidavits, demonstrate a casual and non-judicious approach. 5 Therefore, the denial of benefits is unjustified, and the petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned order and grant of Kramonnati benefits with consequential monetary reliefs. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the submission advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the order impugned herein is passed in accordance with law and does not require any interference of this Court. Therefore, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3, the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Chhattisgarh, Raipur, respectfully submits that the instant petition has been filed by Smt. Kanaklata Shrivastava challenging the order dated 09.12.2022 issued by Respondent No. 1, whereby her claim for time-bound enhanced pay scale (Kramonnati) was declined. It is humbly submitted that the answering respondent, being the Accounts Officer of the State, is primarily entrusted with the maintenance and compilation of General Provident Fund (G.P.F.) accounts of State Government employees, based on the deposit schedules and debit vouchers received from the respective Drawing and Disbursing Officers (DDOs) through the treasury system. The scope of functions performed by this office is strictly limited to accounting responsibilities and does not extend to matters relating to grant, approval, or denial of time-bound pay scale 6 enhancements or service-related benefits such as Kramonnati. Accordingly, the answering respondent has no role, authority, or connection with the subject matter of this petition, and therefore, no relief has been or can be sought against it. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and submissions advanced before this Court. 7. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered the issues involved in Writ Petition (Service) No. 2378 of 2008 and adjudicated the matter by its order dated 12.09.2019. The Bench directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the circulars issued by the State Government dated 17.03.1999 and 19.04.1999. If the petitioner is found eligible for the grant of pension under the said circulars, her pension shall be revised in accordance with the provisions of the circular dated 11.01.2010. It is pertinent to reproduce paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as follows: “4. The petitioner would place before this Court the State Government's subsequent circular dated 11.1.2010, which is made part of record of the writ petition, providing that such Government servants, who were entitled for Kramonnati upon completion of 12 years and 24 years service while 7 they were in service, are entitled to benefit of Kramonnati even after retirement and in such cases, their pension shall be revised after allowing Kramonnati. 5. In view of the circular dated 11.1.2010, the only defence raised in the return does not survive for consideration. 6. The Writ Petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed directing the respondents to pass necessary orders for allowing benefit of Kramonnati to the petitioner in accordance with the State Government's circular dated 17.3.99/19.4.99. If she is found eligible for such grant, her pension shall be revised in accordance with the circular dated 11.1.2010. The decision shall be taken by the Government within a period of 3 months from today and thereafter arrears shall be paid and pension shall be revised within next 3 months.” 8. In light of the above, and considering the decision rendered in Writ Petition (Service) No. 2378 of 2008, the matter is disposed of by directing the concerned authorities to pass the necessary orders allowing the benefit of Kramonnati in accordance with the circulars dated 17.03.1999 and 19.04.1999. The present case stands on the same footing, and the petitioner is entitled to the same relief. Her pension shall accordingly be revised in accordance with the circular 8 dated 11.01.2010. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent authorities to pass a decision within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and also ensure that any arrears are paid within the stipulated period. 9. With these observations and directions this petition is disposed of . Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena