C.A. No. 2970 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.18967 of 2010], JUDGMENT
C.A. Nos. 2976-2977 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.18974-18975 of 2010],
C.A. No. . 2978 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.21631 of 2010],
C.A. No. 2985 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.20128 of 2011]
C.A. No. 2987 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP © 8401/2015 @ CC No. 5205 of 2012],
C.A. No. 2988 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11841 of 2012],
C.A. Nos. 2990- 2991 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.26756-26757 of 2012],
C.A. No. 2992 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) 8403/2015 @ CC No.7597 of 2013], JUDGMENT C.A. No. 2993 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.8407/2015 CC No. 7611 of
2013],
C.A. No. 2995 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.2581 of 2014]
C.A. Nos. 3000-3003 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.29520-29523 of 2014]
1 Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2 These Appeals assail the Judgment of the learned Division Bench of
the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior,
delivered on 22.10.2008, which upheld the Judgment dated 16.10.2007 of
the learned Single Judge.
3 Very briefly stated, the dispute pertains to the eligibility of the JUDGMENT Respondents, all of whom are Lecturers/Teachers in the employment of the
Education and Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh,
for increased pay scales. The Respondents claim the benefits of the
Kramonnati Scheme with effect from 19.4.1999, whereas the Appellants
assert that they are willing to grant the benefit of the Kramonnati Scheme to
them, and obviously others similarly placed as they are, but with effect from
1.8.2003.
4 Under the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, the
Respondents, were eligible for a higher pay scale on completion of 12 years
of service. Subsequently, a policy dated 19.4.1999 known as the said
Kramonnati Scheme came to be introduced entitling all Government
servants to the benefit of two higher pay scales, the first on completion of 12
years of service, and the second on the further completion of another 12
years (24 years in all). The Appellants contend that this Circular applied to
all their employees except the Teacher cadre, since the latter had already
enjoyed the benefit of the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules. On
2.11.2001, the Commissioner Public Instructions sanctioned the second
Kramonnati for teachers with effect from 19.4.1999. The stand of the Appellants is that this JUDGMENTwas erroneously extended without obtaining the
consent of the Finance Department, and was accordingly corrected by order
dated 11.10.2006. However, despite this stance, the State Government took
a policy decision on 3.9.2005 granting the benefit of a second Kramonnati to
Teachers, but with effect from 1.8.2003. Recovery proceedings were
initiated against teachers who had been bestowed Kramonnati from the
earlier date.
5 The object of the Kramonnati Scheme must be noted, as this sheds
light on its application. The Scheme was introduced to remove frustration
among employees who had stagnated at a particular scale for many years
without promotional avenues, with the endeavour of removing any adversity
in their performance. Keeping this purpose in perspective, there is no basis
or justification for discriminating between teachers and all other employees.
The fact that the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules were already in
place at the time the Kramonnati Scheme was introduced indicates that the
Appellants accepted that increase in pay scale are salutary and indeed
important for educators on whose motivation and dedication the future of the
country and of society is almost entirely dependent. We do not agree with
the Appellants’ submission that the Respondents are not entitled to claim the
benefit of the Kramonnati Scheme because they were already covered under the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, as there is no basis for the two being mutually exclusive. Indeed, we find it logical that the application of
the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules regarding the eligibility of
increased pay scales should be replaced by the Kramonnati Scheme, which
is more generous in the benefits it provides. This is all the more so since the
Appellants have themselves ordained that the said Scheme can be availed by
the Respondents but from 1.8.2003, which we find to be arbitrary and
devoid of any logical foundation.
6 The Appellants have claimed that its Notifications indicated with
clarity that the Scheme would not apply to those Departments where a
provision of Kramonnati was already available in their Recruitment Rules.
However, a perusal of the relevant Clarification issued by the State
Government dated 3.5.2000/17.5.2000 makes it clear that its purpose was to
protect employees who were working in Departments that had a provision of
Kramonnati in their Recruitment Rules, by preventing any reduction in
Kramonnati pay scale as a consequence of the new 19.4.1999 policy. It is
our understanding that the Clarification intended to prevent the class of
employees envisaged therein from facing any monetary loss and not to
disadvantage any class of employee.
7 We also find ourselves unable to agree with the Appellants submission
that this is a policy matter and, therefore, should not be interfered with by
the Courts. In Federation of Railway Officers Association vs. Union of
India (2003) 4 SCC 289, this Court has already considered the scope of
judicial review and has enumerated that where a policy is contrary to law or
is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution or is arbitrary or
irrational, Courts must perform their constitutional duties by striking it
down. The Appellants have not been able to explain why it chose to deny
teachers the benefit of the second Kramonnati while granting this benefit to
all other employees, thus discriminating against them and violating their
fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is
indeed paradoxical that teachers who prepare persons for employment and
leadership are dealt with in a parodical attitude by the State. Further, we
reiterate that no explanation is forthcoming for granting the second
Kramonnati with effect from 1.8.2003. This is neither the date in the original
scheme nor justifiable on the basis of any other material available on the
record. Many employees had completed twenty four years of service by
1999; therefore, in postponing their second Kramonnati by four years, the
Appellants have departed from the basic object of the Scheme. The 3.9.2005 Order failed to explain JUDGMENTthe basis of this decision, and is thus arbitrary in nature and discriminatory towards the Respondents and others in their
position.
8 The annals of this litigation also need to be considered in some detail.
The arguments ventilated before us were considered in detail by the Writ
Court in Smt. Prerna v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which was decided on
26.4.2007 by a learned Single Judge of that High Court at its Indore Bench.
10 1
Thereafter, another learned Single Judge of that High Court at its Gwalior
Bench decided the present Writ Petitions from which these Appeals/Petitions
arise in favour of the Respondents vide its Judgment dated 16.10.2007.
Although the reasoning that has persuaded the second learned Single Judge
to decide in favour of the Respondents is evident from the perusal of that
Judgment, reliance on the Judgment dated 26.4.2007 passed in Smt. Prerna
had been duly considered. We must immediately emphasise that a Bench
should ordinarily follow the decision of a Coordinate Bench or else should
forward the matter to the learned Chief Justice for constituting a Larger
Bench in case the reasoning and conclusion of the Coordinate Bench is not
acceptable. The Appeal from the Judgment dated 16.10.2007, has been
dismissed by the Division Bench in terms of the Judgment impugned before
us, and that is how the Special Leave Petitions (now Appeals) came to be filed. In this interregnum,JUDGMENTan appeal that had been preferred from the Order of the learned Single Judge, Indore Bench has also been decided on
18.12.2008 in favour of the Respondents, taking note of the Judgment by a
Coordinate Bench presently impugned before us. We had made this
clarification because one of the arguments that has been ventilated before us
is that the two sets of petitions had not been considered threadbare by the
two Benches located at Indore and Gwalior. This has not lead to any legal
11 11
irregularity, in that the learned Single Judge, as well as the learned Division
Bench have sequentially considered the matter in detail.
9 We do not find any illegality in the Impugned Judgment and the
Appeals are dismissed, but we desist from imposing costs.
10 Since these Appeals are being dismissed, it would be a futile and
wasteful exercise to take up all pending Applications. To remove possible
doubts, all the Applications are dismissed.
New Delhi;
March 17, 2015.