Employees promoted to a post carrying the same pay scale remain entitled to second time-bound financial upgradation.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1979 and received her first higher pay scale (Kramonnati) in 1991 after 12 years of service

In 2002, she was promoted to Head Master, Primary School, but remained in the same pay scale

Following a 2011 High Court order in WP No. 6617/11(s), the respondents granted her the second Kramonnati (after 24 years of service) effective from the due date

However, upon her retirement, the authorities arbitrarily withdrew the benefit, ordered recovery of alleged excess payments with interest, and withheld dues including GPF (Rs. 153,206/-) and leave encashment

The petitioner challenged this recovery and the withholding of retiral benefits

1. Whether an employee is entitled to the benefit of a second higher pay scale (Kramonnati) if their intervening promotion occurred within the same pay scale

2. Whether the respondents were justified in recovering payments and withholding retiral dues after the benefit had been granted pursuant to a judicial verdict

The court applied the principle that technical promotions to posts carrying the same pay scale do not constitute financial up-gradation and cannot negate entitlement to time-bound promotion schemes

It relied on Sukhdev Singh Chauhan v. State of M.P. (WP No. 1080/2007), which held that stationary pay scales entitle an employee to the Second Time Bound Promotion Scheme

This was affirmed by the Division Bench in WA No. 394/2012

The court applied the State Finance Department’s Circular dated 12.02.2014, which explicitly mandates the grant of the second Kramonnati to Teachers who completed 24 years of service even if a promotion occurred within the same pay scale

The court found that the petitioner’s 2002 promotion to Head Master did not result in a higher pay scale, meaning she remained financially stagnant

Applying the precedent set in Sukhdev Singh Chauhan, the court reasoned that "fancy or ornamental" promotions without monetary benefit cannot "dilute or somersault" the case for time-bound pay scales

The court observed that the Division Bench had already disapproved of the State's action in denying financial up-gradation on the grounds of such promotions

Since the State’s own Circular dated 12.02.2014 now codified the right to a second Kramonnati under these specific conditions, the withdrawal of the benefit and the subsequent recovery order were deemed illegal and violative of the petitioner's rights

The court directed the respondents to: (i) extend the second higher pay scale benefit; (ii) revise the pay scale, PPO, and GPO, and pay all arrears; and (iii) release the remaining GPF and leave encashment amounts. Compliance must occur within three months, failing which the respondents shall pay 6% interest per annum from the date of entitlement until actual payment