Twelve years’ continuous service in the same pay scale warrants First Kramonnati consideration despite subsequent retrospective promotion.

The petitioner was appointed as Head Clerk/Accountant on 18 June 1973 and was promoted as Chief Municipal Officer (CMO), Class III (C) Category, on 29 December 1988.

The State Government’s policy dated 25 April 2000 provided for First Kramonnati to employees who had completed 12 years of continuous service in the same pay scale, subject to the prescribed conditions and scrutiny of service records.

The petitioner completed 12 years as CMO, Class III (C), on 29 December 2000 and claimed the benefit of First Kramonnati in the pay scale of ₹8,000–13,500.

The State contended that the petitioner had subsequently been granted notional promotion to the higher category with retrospective effect from 29 March 2010, the date on which his juniors were promoted, and that an employee who received promotion was not entitled to Kramonnati.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had continued on the same post from 29 December 1988 until 29 March 2010 and had retired on 31 March 2011.

Whether the petitioner became eligible for First Kramonnati upon completing 12 years of service in the same pay scale on 29 December 2000, notwithstanding his subsequent notional promotion with effect from 29 March 2010?

Whether the respondents were required to examine the petitioner’s entitlement under the policy dated 25 April 2000, including scrutiny of his last five years’ ACRs?

The Court applied the State Government policy dated 25 April 2000 governing Kramonnati for employees of local bodies.

Under the policy, an employee regularly appointed under the applicable service rules and continuously serving in the same pay scale for 12 years or more could be granted progression to the prescribed higher pay scale, subject to conditions including the absence of an earlier higher pay scale, promotion, Kramonnati, or equivalent financial advancement.

Clause (C) required examination of the employee’s confidential reports for the preceding five years in the same manner as in promotion cases, and grant of Kramonnati upon being found suitable.

The Court found that the petitioner had served continuously as CMO, Class III (C), from 29 December 1988 and completed 12 years in that post and pay scale on 29 December 2000.

His later notional promotion was effective only from 29 March 2010; therefore, it did not eliminate the period during which he had already completed the qualifying 12 years for First Kramonnati.

The Court consequently held that the petitioner was entitled to have his claim considered under the 25 April 2000 policy, particularly since the policy required an assessment of the last five years’ ACRs before determining suitability.

However, rather than directly granting the financial benefit, the Court directed the respondents to undertake the policy-based consideration and pass an appropriate order.

The respondents were directed to pass an appropriate order within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

If the petitioner was found eligible, the benefit was to be extended; otherwise, a reasoned and speaking order was required to be passed.