Employees in work-charged establishments are entitled to Time Bound Promotion Scheme benefits at par with drivers.

The petitioner, an employee in a work-charged establishment, sought the benefit of Kramonnati (Time Bound Promotion Scheme) and pay fixation parity with colleagues K.L. Asre and Madan Gopal Sachan

Previously, the High Court in W.P. No. 16900 of 2015 directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation in light of K.L. Asre v. State of M.P.

The respondents rejected the representation on May 7, 2016, via the impugned order (Annexure P-1), contending that under circulars dated March 7, 1999, and April 19, 1999, the scheme applied only to work-charged drivers and not other categories of work-charged employees

The petitioner challenged this rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the benefit of the Time Bound Promotion Scheme (Kramonnati) is restricted only to drivers within the work-charged establishment or extends to other similarly situated employees

2. Whether the impugned order dated May 7, 2016, passed by respondent no. 3, is legally sustainable in light of prior judicial precedents

The Court applied the principle of non-discrimination in promotional opportunities within public service, as established by the Supreme Court in Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar [AIR 1988 SC 1033], which held that reasonable promotional opportunities must be available in every wing of public service to prevent stagnation

It further relied on the High Court’s ruling in K.L. Asre v. State of M.P. [W.P. No. 1070 of 2003], which determined that if the Time Bound Promotion Scheme is applicable to drivers in a work-charged establishment, it must also apply to other employees in the same establishment, such as Time Keepers

The Court noted that the primary justification for rejecting the petitioner’s claim—that specific circulars limited the scheme to drivers—had already been invalidated by previous judicial decisions

By referencing the K.L. Asre case, the Court reasoned that the Time Bound Promotion Scheme is a remedy against stagnation; therefore, denying it to one category of work-charged employees while granting it to another (drivers) is arbitrary

The Court observed that the issue is no longer res integra (a matter open) as it has been consistently decided in favor of employees in similar petitions, such as W.P. No. 5544 of 2016

Consequently, the petitioner, being similarly situated to the successful litigants in the cited cases, is entitled to the same benefits

The respondents were directed to extend the benefit of the advance increment to the petitioner and revise his pay and pension accordingly within three months from the production of the certified order. Failure to comply within the timeframe would entitle the petitioner to interest at 6% per annum as per the precedent cited