STATE OF M.P. & ORS.versusMALA BANERJEE

                        [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) 4sec   289: 2003 (2) SCR 1085- relied on.


             CASE LAW REFERENCE
                                                                F
2003 (2) SCR 1085          relied on.           Para7


   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         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A                                   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.
          Gyan Prakash Srivastava (Respondent-in-Person).
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                  •
          VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1 Delay condoned. Leave granted.
E
          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 of whom are Lecturers/Teachers in the
  employment of the Education and Tribal Welfare Department,
G Government of Madhya Pradesh, for increased pay scales.
  The Respondents claim the benefits of the Kramonnati
  Scheme with effect from 19.4.1999, whereas the Appellants
  assert that they are willing to grant the benefit of the Kramonnati
  Scheme to them, and obviously others similarly placed as they
H are, but with effect from 1.8.2003.
            STATE OF M. P. v. MALA BANERJEE                         707
                 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]

     4 Under the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules,               A
1990, the Respondents, were eligible for a higher pay scale
on completion of 12 years of service. Subsequently, a policy
dated 19.4.1999 known as the said Kramonnati Scheme came
to be introduced entitling all Government servants to the benefit
of two higher pay scales, the first on completion of 12 years of     B
service, and the second on the further completion of another
12 years (24 years in all). The Appellants contend that this
Circular applied to all their employees except the Teacher
cadre, since the latter had already enjoyed the benefit of the       C
Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules. On 2.11.2001, the
Commissioner Public Instructions sanctioned the second
Kramonnati for teachers with effect from 19.4.1999. The stand
of the Appellants is that this was erroneously extended without
obtaining the consent of the Finance Department, and was             o
accordingly corrected by order dated 11.10.2006. However,
despite this stance, the State Government took a policy
decision on 3.9.2005 granting the benefit of a second
Kramonnati to Teachers, but with effect from 1.8.2003.
Recovery proceedings were initiated against teachers who             E
had been bestowed Kramonnati from the earlier date.
     5 The object of the Kramonnati Scheme must be noted,
as this sheds light on its application. The Scheme was
introduced to remove frustration among employees who had F
stagnated at a particular scale for many yr;lars without
promotional avenues, with the endeavour of removing any
adversity in their performance. Keeping this purpose in
perspective, there is no basis or justification for discriminating
between teachers and all other employees. The fact that the G
Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules were already in place
at the time the Kramonnati Scheme was introduced indicates
that the Appellants accepted that increase in pay scale are
salutary and indeed important for educators on whose
                                                                     H
708         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2015] 3 S.C.R.



·Amotivation and dedication the future of the country and of society
  is almost entirely dependent. We do not agree with the
  Appellants' submission that the Respondents are not entitled
  to claim the benefit of the Kramonnati Scheme because they
  were already covered under the Madhya Pradesh Revision of
B Pay Rules, ,as there is no basis for the two being mutually
  exclusive. Indeed, we find it logical that the application of the
  Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules regarding the eligibility
  of increased pay scales should be replaced by the Kramonnati
C Scheme, which is more generous in the benefits it provides.
  This is all the more so since the Appellants have themselves
  ordained that the said Scheme can be availed by the
  Respondents but from 1.8.2003, which we find to be arbitrary
  and devoid of any logical foundation.
D          6 The Appellants have claimed that its Notifications
      indicated with clarity that the Scheme would not apply to those
      Departments where a provision of Kramonnati was already
      available in their Recruitment Rules. However, a perusal of
      the relevant Clarification issued by the State Government dated
E     3.5.2000/17.5.2000 makes it clear that its purpose was to
      protect employees who were working in Departments that had
      a provision of Kramonnati in their Recruitment Rules, by
      preventing any reduction in Kramonnati pay scale as a
F     consequence of the new 19.4.1999 policy. It is our
      understanding that the Clarification intended to prevent the
      class of employees envisaged therein from facing any monetary
      loss and not to disadvantage any class of employee.
       7 We also find ourselves unable to agree with the
G Appellants submission that this is a policy matter and, therefore,
  should not be interfered with by the Courts: In Federation of
  Railway Officers Association vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC
  289, this Court has already considered the scope of judicial
  review and has enumerated that where a policy is contrary to
H
           STATE OF M. P. v. MALA BANERJEE                      709
                [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]

law or is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution or is A
arbitrary or irrational, Courts must perform their constitutional
duties by striking it down. The Appellants have not been able
to 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 B
fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. It is indeed paradoxical that teachers who
prepare persons for employment and leadership are dealt with
in a parodical attitude by the State. Further, we reiterate that C
no explanation is forthcoming for granting the second
Kramonnati with effect from 1.8.2003. This is neither the date
in the original scheme nor justifiable on the basis of any other
material available on the record. Many employees had
completed twenty four years of service by 1999; therefore, in o
postponing their second Kramonnati by four years, the
Appellants have departed from the basic object of the Scheme.
The 3.9.2005 Order failed to explain the basis of this decision,
and is thus arbitrary in nature and discriminatory towards the
Respondents and others in their position.                          E
     8 The annals of this litigation also need to be considered
in some detail. The arguments ventilated before us were
considered in detail by the Writ Court in Smt. Prerna v. State
of Madhya Pradesh, which was decided on 26.4.2007 by a F
learned Single Judge of that High Court at its Indore Bench.
Thereafter, another learned Single Judge of that High Court at
its Gwalior Bench decided the present Writ Petitions from
which these Appeals/Petitions arise in favour of the
Respondents vide its Judgment dated 16.10.2007. Although G
the reasoning that has persuaded the second learned Single
Judge to decide in favour of the Respondents is evident from
the perusal of that Judgment, reliance on the Judgment dated
26.4.2007 passed in Smt. Prerna had been duly considered.
                                                                  H
710          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A     We must immediately emphasise that a Bench should
      ordinarily follow the decision of a Coordinate Bench or else
      should forward the matter to the learned Chief Justice for
      constituting a Larger Bench in case the reasoning and
      conclusion of the Coordinate Bench is not acceptable. The
B     Appeal from the Judgment dated 16.10.2007, has been
      dismissed by the Division Bench in terms of the Judgment
      impugned before us, and that is how the Special Leave
      Petitions (now Appeals) came to be filed. In this interregnum,
C     an appeal that had been preferred from the Order of the learned
      Single Judge, Indore Bench has also been decided on
      18.12.2008 in favour of the Respondents, taking note of the
      Judgment by a Coordinate Bench presently impugned before
      us. We had made this clarification because one of the
D     arguments that has been ventilated before us is that the two
      sets of petitions had not been considered threadbare by the
      two Benches located at Indore and Gwalior. This has not lead
      to any legal irregularity, in that the learned Single Judge, as
      well as the learned Division Bench have sequentially
E     considered the matter in detail.
          9 We do not find any illegality in the Impugned Judgment
      and the Appeals are dismissed, but we desist from imposing
      costs.
F          10 SincetheseAppeals are being dismissed, it would be
      a futile and wasteful exercise to take up all pending
      Applications. To remove possible doubts, all the Applications
      are dismissed.
G     Oevika Gujral                                 Appeals dismissed.




H