BABY JOHN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was serving as Assistant Superintendent in the Directorate of Sericulture, Bhopal, has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ventilating his grievance against the order dated 9-11-2011 by which the petitioner is granted the second higher pay scale in the time scale pay with effect from 9-11-2009 and has also called in question the order dated 15-3-2011 by which a show cause notice has been issued to him and on the basis of which a major penalty has been imposed on him. He has also called in question the action of respondents by which house rent allowance with effect from May, 2002 to 31-10-2009 has been denied to him and has also complained about non-finalization of the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 as has been recommended by the Brahmaswaroop Committee but which has not been implemented in the Sericulture Department, on the grounds that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for grant of benefit of higher pay scale in terms of the policy made by the State Government on 24-1-2008. However, in complete ignorance of the said policy, the benefit was extended to the petitioner but not from the appropriate date. Though he was due for grant of second Kramonnati with effect from 1-4-2006, the order in that respect was not issued on the other hand by order dated 9-11-2009 the petitioner was extended the benefit of second higher pay scale with effect from 9-11-2009. The representation in this respect was made but nothing was done, therefore, the petitioner was required to approach this Court. Since the representation was made by the petitioner against such an action of the respondents, he protested against the action of not paying the house rent allowance, by memo dated 15-3-2011 it was said that the action is initiated against the petitioner for committing misconduct of remaining absent from the office. It is contended that a reply was submitted but since nothing was done, a monetary loss was caused to the petitioner just at the fag end of service when he was intimated to superannuate with effect from 29-12-2012. Therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. It is contended that all such actions taken by the respondents are, thus, bad in law. The petitioner would be entitled to grant of relief claimed in this respect. Refuting the allegations made in the writ petition, a return has been filed and it is contended that in fact the petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. A show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on account of his remaining absent from duty. A reply has been filed by the petitioner in respect to the said show cause notice. The order in that respect has been issued and, therefore, now the petitioner is required to challenge such an order if at all he is aggrieved by filing an appeal. It is contended that as far as the house rent allowance is concerned, the wife of the petitioner was also employed in the Income Tax Department of Government of India and was thus entitled to get the house rent from her employer. Husband and wife were living together and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit of house rent allowance. The wife of the petitioner has retired with effect from 31-10-2009 and a representation was made by the petitioner on the basis of which the order has already been passed sanctioning the house rent allowance to the petitioner with effect from the month of November, 2009. In view of this, no relief whatsoever can be granted to the petitioner and his petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

(3.) Now first of all it has to be seen whether the case of the petitioner was rightly considered for grant of higher pay scale or not. It is not in dispute that the policy was made by the State Government on 24-1-2008 implementing the scheme of grant of higher pay scale to those employees/officers, who have worked only on one post, in one pay scale for a period of 8/10 years. The second higher pay scale is to be granted on completion of 16/20 years of service. The criteria prescribed for grant of such higher pay scale is on the consideration of ACRs of all such persons, who have completed the requisite years of service in the same manner as is prescribed for consideration for grant of promotion in the relevant statutory rules. The scheme further contemplates that if an employee is found fit for grant of first higher pay scale, it is not necessary to consider the five years ACRs for the last five years working for the purposes of granting the second higher pay scale. Time and again this has been pointed out by the respondents by issuing the clarification that in case an employee is granted the benefit of Kramonnati or the first higher pay scale, his ACRs are not required to be considered for the purposes of granting second higher pay scale. This particular aspect has also been considered by this Court in the case of Rajaram Patel vs. State of M.P. and others, 2013 1 MPLJ 712 W.P. No. 20038/2011 (S), decided on 14-12-2012. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was found fit for grant of Kramonnati pay scale. He was due to be considered for grant of second higher pay scale w.e.f. 2006 as all such persons similarly situated were granted this benefit w.e.f. 1-4-2006. Only with respect to the claim of the petitioner it is said that when the consideration was done and meeting was held on 21-11-2008, the petitioner was not found fit for grant of this benefit. Though for others it was said that they were found fit for grant of such benefit. This was mainly done only on account of consideration of the ACRs of the petitioner for last five years. The criteria as prescribed by the respondents was that there should not be any adverse remarks in the ACRs and the last two ACRs should be good. The master chart appended with proceedings indicates that there were no adverse remarks in respect of the petitioner and he was having good remarks for the two years but in the last three years ACRs, average marking was done and, therefore, it was said that the petitioner was not found fit for grant of such benefit. The persons, who were considered along with the petitioner, one was having only four years ACRs but he too was found fit for grant of such benefit. Next consideration of the claim of the petitioner was done on 9-11-2009 and in that year though only in one year's ACR good remark was there and remaining four years remarks for the ACRs were average, yet the petitioner was found fit for grant of such benefit w.e.f. 9-11-2009. This consideration by the Committee for the purpose of granting of this benefit to the petitioner is not understood by this Court. Firstly, there was no requirement of considering the ACRs for the purposes of granting the second higher pay scale in terms of the scheme dated 24-1-2008 wherein in paragraph 12 this condition was specifically mentioned. Secondly, the criteria was not dependant on the wish of the committee members. An uniform criteria should have been made applicable. As has been reflected hereinabove, for the year 2006 when the consideration was done, despite there being two good remarks in the ACRs, the petitioner was not found fit for grant of second higher pay scale whereas in comparison to this in the year 2009 he was found fit for grant of benefit of second higher pay scale despite the fact that he was having only one good remark and rest of the four were average. Thus, such consideration for the purposes of grant of second higher pay scale done by the respondents cannot be said to be just and proper.