Promotion without financial advancement does not bar entitlement to second kramonnati benefit under state policy.

The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on February 4, 1966. He was promoted to Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on May 9, 1977, receiving a higher pay scale.

On July 31, 1998, he was promoted to Accountant; however, since he was already receiving the pay scale of the promotional post, he was granted only a special pay of ₹250/- under Rule 22-D of the Fundamental Rules rather than an upgraded pay scale.

Under the state policy dated April 19, 1999, the petitioner was initially granted the benefit of "Second Kramonnati" (time-bound pay advancement), but this was withdrawn via order dated November 8, 2005.

Following a previous remand by the Lok Adalat, the respondent authorities issued an impugned order dated December 11, 2014, maintaining the withdrawal on the grounds that the petitioner had received two promotions and was thus ineligible under Clause 2(b) of the policy.

1. Whether the promotion of an employee to a post carrying the same pay scale constitutes an advancement of pay scale such as to disqualify the employee from the benefit of Second Kramonnati under the 1999 Policy.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Second Kramonnati effective from July 31, 1998, despite having received two career promotions.

State Kramonnati Policy dated March 17, 1999/April 19, 1999, specifically Clauses 2(a) and 2(b), which intend to provide at least two higher pay scales to employees during 24 years of service to prevent stagnation.

Division Bench precedent in Daulat Ram Rajak v. State of M.P. (WA No. 252/2013), which established that the "benefit" mentioned in the circular must be a monetary/financial upgrade in the pay scale, not merely a change in nomenclature or status through promotion.

Nathulal v. State of M.P., affirming that promotion to a post in the same pay scale as the feeder post does not negate the right to Kramonnati.

The Court reasoned that the objective of the Kramonnati scheme is to ensure employees receive at least two financial upgrades in their career.

While the respondents argued that the petitioner's two promotions (1977 and 1998) barred him from the benefit, the Court found that the 1998 promotion to Accountant was a "paper promotion" in terms of financial scale.

Because the petitioner remained in the same pay scale (4000-6000) that he held prior to the 1998 promotion, the grant of a ₹250/- special allowance under FR 22-D did not equate to an enhanced promotional pay scale.

Applying the Daulat Ram Rajak principle, the Court held that since the petitioner remained financially stagnated in the same scale despite the status change, the restrictive interpretation of Clause 2(b) applied by the authorities was illegal and frustrated the policy's beneficial purpose.

The Court quashed the impugned orders dated November 8, 2005, and December 11, 2014; directed the release of recovered amounts with applicable bank interest within three months and instructed the issuance of a revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) reflecting the Second Kramonnati benefit.