Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2944        OF 2015 Arising out of SLP(C)No. 35931 OF 2009

STATE OF M.P. & ORS.                    .. APPELLANT(s)

Vs.

MALA BANERJEE            .. RESPONDENT(s)

WITH

C.A. No.  2945  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No. 35932 of 2009],  

C.A. No. 2946 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.35933 of 2009],  

C.A. No. 2947  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.35935 of 2009],  

C.A. No. 2948 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.35937 of 2009],  

C.A. No. 2949 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.35938 of 2009],  

C.A. No. 2950  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.35939 of 2009],  

C.A. No. 2951 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No. 35940 of 2009],  

C.A. No. 2952  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.35941 of 2009],  

C.A. No. 2953  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.35942 of 2009],  

C.A. No. 2954  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.35943 of 2009],  

C.A. No. 2955  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.35945 of 2009],

Page 2

2

C.A. No. 2956 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.35946 of 2009],  

2

Page 3

3

C.A. No. 2957 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.3082 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2958  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.3325 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2959  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.10321 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2960 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.11912 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2961 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.11949 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2962  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.12890 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2963  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.13764 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2964 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.18394 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2965 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.18457 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2966 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.18460 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2967  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.18964 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2968  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.18965 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2969 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.18966 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2970  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.18967  of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2971  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.18968 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2972  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.18970 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2973  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.18971 of 2010],

C.A. No. 2974 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.18972 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2975  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.18973 of 2010],  

C.A. Nos. 2976-2977 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.18974-18975 of 2010],  

3

Page 4

4

C.A. No. . 2978  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.21631 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2979  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.22309 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2980 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.23986 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2981 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.25706 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2982  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.35890 of 2010],  

C.A. No. 2983  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.7310 of 2011],  

C.A. No. 2984  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.17537 of 2011],  

C.A. No. 2985  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.20128 of 2011]  

C.A. No. 2987  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP © 8401/2015 @ CC No. 5205 of  2012],  

C.A. No. 2988  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11841 of 2012],  

C.A. No. 2989  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.24864 of 2012],  

C.A. Nos. 2990- 2991 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.26756-26757 of 2012],  

C.A. No. 2992  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) 8403/2015 @ CC No.7597 of  

2013],  

C.A. No. 2993  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.8407/2015 CC No. 7611 of  

2013],  

C.A. No. 2994  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.33945 of 2013],  

C.A. No. 2995  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.2581 of 2014]

C.A. No. 2996  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.8516 of 2014],  

C.A. No. 2997  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.14208 of 2014],  

4

Page 5

5

C.A. No. 2998  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.17279 of 2014],  

C.A. No. 2999 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.25975 of 2014],  

C.A. Nos. 3000-3003  of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.29520-29523 of 2014]

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

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 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, 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  

5

Page 6

6

them, and obviously others similarly placed as they are, but with effect from  

1.8.2003.    

4 Under  the  Madhya  Pradesh  Revision  of  Pay  Rules,  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 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  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 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  had  been  bestowed  Kramonnati  from  the  

earlier date.  

6

Page 7

7

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 stagnated at a particular scale for many years  

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 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 motivation 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 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 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  

7

Page 8

8

the  Respondents  but  from 1.8.2003,  which we  find   to  be  arbitrary  and  

devoid of any logical foundation.

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 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 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 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 law or  

is  in  violation  of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  or  is  arbitrary  or  

8

Page 9

9

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  

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  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 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.   

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 learned Single Judge of that High Court at its Indore Bench.  

9

Page 10

10

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 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.  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 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, 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 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  

1

Page 11

11

irregularity, in that the learned Single Judge, as well as the learned Division  

Bench have sequentially 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.  

10 Since  these  Appeals  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.

                       ............................................J.              [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]  

                       ............................................J.              [PRAFULLA C.  PANT]

             New Delhi; March 17, 2015.

11