LexSTATE OF M.P. & ORS. versus MALA BANERJEE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 704 A STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. MALA BANERJEE (Civil Appeal No. 2944 of 2015) B MARCH 17, 2015 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] Service law: Increased pay scale - Kramonnati Scheme - Eligibility of respondents-lecturers/teachers for increased C pay scales - Under Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, lecturers/teachers were eligible for a higher pay scale on completion of 12 years of service - Kramonnati Scheme entitled all government servants to the benefit of two higher pay scales, first on completion of 12 years of service and the o second on further completion of another 12 years (24 years in all) - Scheme was effective from 19.4.1999 - State Government granted the benefit of Scheme to teachers w. e. f. 1. 8. 2003 - High Court held in favour of respondents - Held: There was no justification for discriminating between teachers E and all other employees in view of the purpose of the Scheme - The appellants could not explain why it chose to deny teachers the benefit of the second Kramonnati while granting this benefit to all other employees, thus discriminating against them and violating their fundamental rights F enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - Further, there was no explanation for granting the second Kramonnati w.e.f. 1.8.2003 - This was neither the date in the original scheme nor justifiable on the basis of any other material G available on the record - Many employees had completed 24 years of service by 1999; therefore, in postponing their second Kramonnati by 4 years, the appellants departed from the basic object of the Scheme - The order was arbitrary in nature and discriminatory towards the respondents and others H in their position. 704 STATE OF M. P. v. MALA BANERJEE 705 Dismissing the appeals, the Court A HELD: 1. Kramonnati Scheme was introduced to remove frustration among employees who had stagnated at a particular scale for many years without promotional avenues, with the endeavour of removing B any adversity in their performance. Keeping this purpose in perspective, there was no justification for discriminating between teachers and all other employees. The fact that the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules were already in place at the time the c Kramonnati Scheme was introduced indicated that the appellants accepted that increase in pay scale are salutary and indeed important for educators on whose motivation and dedication the future of the country and of society is almost entirely dependent. It is not correct D to state that the respondents were not entitled to claim the benefit of the Kramonnati Scheme because they were already covered under the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, as there was no basis for the two being mutually exclusive. [Paras 5 and 7] [708-F-H; 708-A-C] E Federation of Railway Officers Association vs. Union of India (2003) 4 sec 289: 2003 (2) SCR 1085- relied on. CASE LAW REFERENCE 2003 (2) SCR 1085 relied on. Para7 F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. G 2944of2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.2008 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in WritAppeal No. 201 of2008. H 706 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 2945, 2946, 2947, 2948, 2949, 2950, 2951, 2952, 2953, 2954, 2955, 2956, 2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961,2962,2963,2964,2965,2966,2967,2968,2969,2970, B 2971,2972,2973,2974,2975,2976-2977,2978,2979,2980, 2981,2982,2983,2984,2985,2987,2988,2989,2990-2991, 2992, 2993, 2994, 2995, 2996, 2997, 2998, 2999 and 3000- 3003 of2015 C. D. Singh, Darpan Bhuyon, B. S. Banthia, Sachin D., C Sunny Choudhary, Mishra Saurabh, Ankit, Anoop Kr. Srivastav, Gunnam Venkateswara, Jyoti Mendiratta, Sahiba Pante!, Satish Kumar, Abhisth Kumar, Puneet Jain, Abhinav Gupta, Ankita Gupta, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Ashok Mathur, Anand Sanjoy D M. Nuli, Rajesh, Romy Chacko, Amit Kumar, PulkitT., Prakash Kumar Singh for the appearing parties. E Gyan Prakash Srivastava (Respondent-in-Person). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by • VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1 Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2 These Appeals assail the Judgment of the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, delivered on 22.10.2008, which upheld the Judgment dated 16.10.2007 of the learned Single F Judge. 3 Very briefly stated, the dispute pertains to the eligibility of the Respondents, all
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.