The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that, for purposes of calculating eligibility for the first and second Kramonnati benefits under the State’s policy, the service of an employee absorbed into government service is to be reckoned from the date of such absorption, not prior promotions/pay scales received in private/institutional roles. The Court upheld the entitlement to monetary benefits of the second Kramonnati, providing binding authority on service matters involving absorption and subsequent pay scale benefits for all courts within Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/1791/2012 of DAMRUDHAR TRIVEDI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH and ORS |
| CNR | CGHC010128972012 |
| Date of Registration | 25-04-2012 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Public Employment / Kramonnati Promotion Policy |
| Questions of Law | Whether absorption of an employee into government service resets eligibility counting for time-bound (Kramonnati) promotions under State policy. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that, upon absorption into government service, prior promotions or pay scales granted during private/institutional service do not bar an employee from being considered for first and second time-bound promotions under the government’s Kramonnati scheme. The “promotion” referred to in the policy is that which occurs subsequent to government absorption. Since the petitioner’s husband was absorbed as a lecturer and received only one promotion and one time-bound pay scale thereafter, the refusal of monetary benefits in respect of the second Kramonnati benefit was not justified. The Court distinguished between pre-government and post-government service, holding the latter as the relevant period for grant of such benefits. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The original petitioner’s husband was initially appointed as UDT in a private school, promoted as Lecturer prior to government takeover, then absorbed into government service as UDT and soon after as Lecturer. He received the first Kramonnati benefit post-absorption and was sanctioned the second, but not given the monetary benefit. The State contended he had obtained two promotions/higher pay scales and was thus ineligible; the Court found the pre-government promotion irrelevant for the government absorption and consequent pay benefits. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Interpretation of government circulars, consideration of service record, and factual distinction between absorption and promotion during institutional service. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the State of Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar Kramonnati or time-bound promotion policy interpretations |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clarifies that for employees absorbed into government service, eligibility for time-bound promotions (Kramonnati) is to be reckoned from the date of absorption, not from prior promotions in private or aided institutions.
- Prior institutional promotions do not count as “government promotions” for the purposes of calculating time-bound pay scale entitlements under State circulars.
- Lawyers representing employees in similar absorption/pay scale disputes may cite this precedent to challenge denials of Kramonnati benefits where clients’ pre-absorption promotions are being counted to their detriment.
- The distinction between “promotion” pre- and post-absorption is now authoritatively clarified for public employment in Chhattisgarh.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The central issue before the Court was whether the petitioner’s deceased husband was entitled to receive the monetary benefit of the second time-bound promotion (Kramonnati), having already been absorbed as Lecturer in government service.
- The State resisted the claim, arguing that the employee had already received two promotions/higher pay scales — once as Lecturer (before absorption) and once as Kramonnati after absorption.
- The Court carefully examined the factual record, noting that the “promotion” to Lecturer occurred while the school was still private and that absorption into government service (first as UDT, then as Lecturer) was the operative event marking commencement of government service.
- The relevant government circulars, as interpreted by the Court, contemplate that previous promotions/pay scale advancements prior to absorption do not count against the employee for subsequent government service benefits.
- The Court rejected the State’s assertion that the absorption order into government service should be treated as another promotion for Kramonnati calculation purposes.
- Accordingly, the Court directed that the monetary benefits of the second Kramonnati, as sanctioned, be released to the petitioners.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The respondent authorities had themselves released office orders sanctioning the second Kramonnati benefit in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000/-, but did not disburse the corresponding monetary benefits.
- No reasons were cited by the respondents for the delay in releasing the second Kramonnati benefit and for not revising pension/family pension accordingly.
- The petitioner argued that her husband had only been promoted once (in 1983 as Lecturer) and thereafter received the first time-bound Kramonnati; entitlement to the second should follow as per policy.
- Since her husband worked throughout as Lecturer after absorption, refusal of monetary benefits was arbitrary.
Respondent (State)
- Citing the State’s policy, the respondents submitted that employees who secured two or more promotions or higher pay scales during their service are not entitled to Kramonnati benefits.
- The husband of the original petitioner, per the State, received promotion to Lecturer and first Kramonnati during service, so monetary benefits of the second Kramonnati were not due.
- The State also alleged that the petitioner made misleading and incorrect factual averments regarding the sequence and nature of promotions and pay scales.
Factual Background
The original petitioner’s husband was first appointed as UDT in a private school in 1967, later promoted as Lecturer in 1974. His school was taken over by the State in 1982, with the petitioner’s husband being absorbed as UDT and then as Lecturer. He was granted the first Kramonnati after 12 years of government service and sanctioned the second Kramonnati after 24 years, but no monetary benefit was paid. Following his death and the subsequent death of the initial petitioner (his wife), their legal heirs pursued the present writ for release of Kramonnati monetary benefits.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted relevant State government circulars (including the policy annexed as Annexure P/11) concerning grant of two higher pay scales (“Kramonnati”) to employees after specified periods of service (12/24 years), provided they had received no promotion/selection grade pay during their service period.
- It was clarified that the terms of the circular must be read in reference to service after absorption into government employment; prior promotions outside government service are not to be counted for exclusion from Kramonnati benefits.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies and clarifies existing precedent regarding Kramonnati eligibility and absorption into government service.