RAGHVENDRA v. Collector Dhamtari, Office Of Collector, District Dhamtari

: Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/08/2025

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to Court to quash the order dated 13/1/2022 passed by the Deputy Collector on behalf of the Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG). (Annexure P/1).

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court ne pleased to Court to 2 direct the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner Higher payscale/Timescale for completing 20 years from 12/2/2019 with interest.

10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit the present facts circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade III on 12 February 1999. Accordingly, she rendered her services in the office of the Collector, Dhamtari Upon completion of ten years of service, the petitioner was duly granted Kramonnat Vetanman (increment in pay scale) However, when the petitioner completed twenty years of service on 12 March, 2019, she was not granted the second pay scale to which she was otherwise entitled. It is further submitted that, subsequently, based on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 25th May, 2019, the Collector, Dhamtari, passed an order on 26 February, 2019 recognizing that employees who had completed ten, twenty and thirty years of service would be considered for higher pay scates in this context, it is pertinent to note that an earlier order dated 31 December 2016 issued by the Collector, Dhamtari, had also stipulated that employees who completed ten twenty and thirty years of service would be entitled to the corresponding higher pay scales. Despite these provisions, the petitioner's entitlement to the higher pay scale upon completion of twenty years of service has not been granted. 3

3. On the relevant date the petitioner had not completed the requisite period of service and, therefore, was not entitled to the benefits in question. Upon completion of 20 years of service, the petitioner became eligible for the second pay scale and was due for promotion from Assistant Grade ill to Assistant Grade II, corresponding to a pay scale of ₹5,200-20,200 with a grade pay of Rs. 2.400, Pay Matrix Level 6, and was posted at Kurud, Dhamtari. However the petitioner declined the promotion on medical grounds Subsequently, due to non-grant of the second pay scale, the petitioner submitted a formal representation on 04.01.2022 seeking the grant of benefits of the higher pay scale after completion of 20 years of service, in accordance with the circular dated 22.02.2022. The representation was considered, and it was dismissed on the ground that, having refused the promotion earlier granted to her, the petitioner could not entitlement to the benefits of the second higher pay scale.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State contends that the petitioner's claim is patently without merit and legally untenable. It was submitted that there exists no nexus whatsoever between the alleged refusal of promotion and the entitlement to the benefits claimed. The State's counsel emphasized that the two matters promotion and pay scale increment are distinct and independent. It was further argued that upon completion of twenty years of service, the petitioner became entitled to the higher pay 4 scale, and such entitlement cannot be negated merely on the ground that the petitioner allegedly declined promotion Moreover, it was submitted that the petitioner retired from service on 30 September 2022, and consequently, she cannot claim any benefits under the scheme of "Kramonnat Vetanman post-retirement Learned counsel for the State accordingly contended that the petitioner's claim is devoid of any legal basis and deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by both parties and perused the record carefully. It appears that the petitioner was granted the higher pay scale upon completion of ten years of service. Subsequently, in accordance with the relevant circulars issued from time to time, it is provided that employees are entitled to further increments in their pay scale or Kramonnat Vetanman upon completion of ten, twenty and thirty years of service, respectively. However since the petitioner has not completed the requisite years of service in the relevant period. she cannot be considered eligible for Kramonnat Vetanman at this stage.

6. Further, a perusal of the order indicates that it fails to establish any clear nexus between the petitioners alleged refusal of promotion and the entitlement to the second Higher Pay Scale. It is well-settled that the second Higher Pay Scale is granted purely on the basis of completion of twenty years of service. There exists no provision of law or statutory mandate which stipulates that an employee's refusal to accept a promotion would disentitle them from claiming the second Higher Pay Scale. It is important to note that the promotion and the 5 grant of Higher Pay Scales are two distinct and independent matters. The entitlement to the Higher Pay Scale arises on completion of ten years and twenty years of service respectively irrespective of whether the employee accepts or declines a promotion. Therefore, the refusal to be promoted cannot lawfully operate as a bar to the grant of the second Higher Pay Scale, which is a right accrued by virtue of long service and not contingent upon acceptance of promotion.

7. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a careful consideration of the submissions advanced by both parties as well as the material placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner, having completed twenty years of continuous and satisfactory service, became entitled to the grant of the second Higher Pay Scale in terms of the applicable circulars and policy governing Kramonnat Vetanman. The refusal of promotion on medical grounds cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, be treated as a disqualification for receiving the benefits of the higher pay scale, since the two stand on distinct and independent footings—promotion being an elevation in post and Kramonnat Vetanman being a benefit attached to length of service. The impugned order dated 13.01.2022 passed by the Deputy Collector on behalf of the Collector, Dhamtari, is therefore unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

9. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioner the benefit of the second Higher Pay Scale on completion of twenty years of service 6 from 12.02.2019, along with all consequential benefits and arrears, which shall be paid to her. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat