Recovery Of Time-Bound Promotion Benefits (Kramonnati) From Work Charged Employees Illegal, Benefits Must Continue; MP HC
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Jain upheld work charged employees' right to time-bound promotion benefits (kramonnati), quashing recovery orders issued against them. The Court held that work charged and contingency paid employees constitute a common class under service rules, entitled to identical benefits including kramonnati. Rejecting...
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Jain upheld work charged employees' right to time-bound promotion benefits (kramonnati), quashing recovery orders issued against them. The Court held that work charged and contingency paid employees constitute a common class under service rules, entitled to identical benefits including kramonnati. Rejecting the state's argument based on Ram Naresh Rawat's case, the Court emphasized that work charged employees, receiving regular pay scales and revisions, cannot be denied benefits available to others in their class without justifiable grounds.
Background
The case emerged from three writ petitions challenging the withdrawal of first and second kramonnati benefits from the petitioners and subsequent recovery orders. By order dated 08/02/2019, the petitioners' pay was refixed by withdrawing kramonnati benefits based on objections raised by the Joint Director Treasury and Accounts. The authority contended that employees in Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment were not entitled to these benefits. Consequently, recovery orders were issued, with one petitioner facing a recovery amount of Rs. 1,64,226/-, while others faced varying amounts.
Arguments
The petitioners presented two main arguments. Firstly, they contended that the denial of kramonnati benefits to work charged employees was legally untenable, citing the High Court's decisions in Teju Lal Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh (ILR (2009) MP 1326) and K.L. Asre v. State (WP No. 1070/2003). Secondly, they argued that even if the benefits were wrongly granted, there was no suppression or misrepresentation on their part, making the recovery illegal under the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334. The State, defending its position, relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray (2017) 3 SCC 436 to argue that work charged employees were not entitled to kramonnati benefits.
Court's Reasoning
Firstly, the court dismissed the state's reliance on Ram Naresh Rawat, noting that this case dealt with classified employees under the MP Industrial Employment Standing Order Act, 1963, which was distinctly different from work charged employees who receive regular pay scales and revisions under specific service rules. Secondly, the court noted that K.L. Asre's established the principles regarding the status of work charged and contingency paid employees. The judgment had clarified that these employees constitute a common class under various rules, including the MP Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978, and the MP (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.
Thirdly, the court emphasized that work charged and contingency paid employees are governed by identical sets of rules for recruitment, appointment, pay revision, and pensionary benefits. This common classification mandates similar treatment in all respects, with any deviation requiring justifiable grounds. The court noted that the government's own policy, through Clauses 13 and 14, had extended kramonnati benefits to vehicle drivers in work charged establishments, indicating recognition of these benefits for work charged employees.
Lastly, the court referenced Sunil Barve v. State of M.P. (WP No. 19301/2018), where a Coordinate Bench at Indore had granted similar kramonnati benefits to work charged establishment employees. Finding no evidence that this order had been overturned in any appeal, the court applied its ratio to the present case. The court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to kramonnati benefits and directed that these be calculated accordingly. Consequently, it quashed both the impugned order of pay refixation and the recovery orders, allowing all the writ petitions.
Date: 21 October, 2024
Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-JBP:52608
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 273
Counsel for the Petitioner: Shri S.K. Singh
Counsel for the Respondent/State: Shri Manhar Dixit