Employee receiving promotion with higher pay scale between 12-24 years of service is ineligible for second kramonnati.

The petitioners, initially appointed as Upper Division Teachers (UDT) between 1981 and 1986, received their first Krammonati (financial upgradation) after 12 years of service.

They were subsequently promoted to the post of Headmaster between 1997 and 1998, though they alleged their pay scale remained unchanged upon this promotion.

Later, between 2005 and 2009, they were promoted to the post of Lecturer.

The petitioners challenged an endorsement dated June 13, 2017, in their service books which denied them the benefit of a second Krammonati (due after 24 years of service) on the grounds that they had already received two promotions.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of a second Krammonati under the State Government’s policy despite receiving a subsequent promotion to the post of Lecturer.

State Government Policy dated April 19, 1999 (Annexure R/1), specifically clauses 'ka' and 'kha'.

These clauses stipulate that an employee is entitled to a second Krammonati only if they have not received any promotion, advancement of pay, or upgradation in service between the 12th and 24th year of their tenure.

The court examined the service history of the petitioners in light of the 1999 Policy. It noted that while the petitioners’ promotion to Headmaster might not have resulted in a pay scale change, they were undisputedly promoted to the post of Lecturer with a higher pay scale between their 12th and 24th years of service (specifically in 2005 and 2009).

The court reasoned that the core condition for a second Krammonati is the total absence of financial upgradation or promotion during the second 12-year block of service. Since the petitioners received the higher pay scale of a Lecturer during this period, the criteria for the benefit were not met.

The court further held that even if the administrative endorsement incorrectly cited "two" promotions, the fact remains that at least one promotion with a higher pay scale occurred, which is sufficient to disqualify them from the benefit under the policy.

The Court found the impugned endorsement to be in consonance with the policy dated April 19, 1999. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed for lack of merit.