The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that an employee who declines a promoted post is not entitled to the benefit of kramonnati, or third-time pay scale, upon completing 30 years of service. The Court upheld the lower court’s dismissal of the writ petition, emphasizing that voluntary refusal of promotion negates the condition of stagnation required for such benefits.
The Verdict
The appellant, a government employee, lost his claim for third-time pay scale after 30 years of service. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ appeal, holding that declining a formal promotion disentitles an employee from kramonnati benefits. The Court relied on its own Full Bench precedent in Rameshchandra Temniya, affirming that no stagnation exists when promotion is offered and refused.
Background & Facts
The appellant, a government servant, had completed 30 years of service and sought the benefit of the third-time pay scale under the kramonnati scheme, which provides incremental pay to employees who remain in the same grade due to lack of promotion. In 2009, he was formally offered a promotion, which he declined without accepting the new post or assuming its responsibilities. He continued in his existing position.
Years later, he applied for the kramonnati benefit, arguing that his service had been stagnant. The writ court rejected his claim, observing that since a promotion had been offered and declined, there was no legal stagnation. The appellant filed a writ appeal, challenging this finding.
The case was heard on appeal after a 19-day delay in filing, which the Court condoned on the grounds stated in the application. The core dispute centered on whether the refusal of a promotion, even without formal acceptance, could still qualify the employee for kramonnati benefits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an employee who is offered a promotion but declines it remains eligible for the third-time pay scale under kramonnati rules upon completing 30 years of service, or whether such refusal extinguishes the claim by negating the condition of stagnation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that since he never accepted the promotional post, his service remained stagnant in the same grade. He argued that kramonnati benefits are triggered by actual stagnation in pay scale, not by the mere offer of promotion. He cited instances where similarly placed employees had received the benefit before the Full Bench judgment in Rameshchandra Temniya, suggesting inconsistency in administrative application.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that kramonnati is designed to compensate for involuntary stagnation. Once a promotion is formally offered and declined, the employee voluntarily chooses to remain in the existing grade. The State relied on the Full Bench decision in Rameshchandra Temniya, which held that an employee who declines promotion cannot claim stagnation. The State further argued that past irregularities in granting benefits to others do not create a legal entitlement.
The Court's Analysis
The Court affirmed that the doctrine of kramonnati is predicated on the principle of stagnation arising from the absence of promotion opportunities, not from an employee’s own decision to forgo advancement. The Full Bench in Rameshchandra Temniya had squarely held that an employee who declines a promotion cannot be said to be stagnating, as the opportunity for upward mobility was present and rejected.
"Once promotion is offered and the employee declined to avail promotion it cannot be said that there is any stagnation, and under those circumstances the employee would not be entitled to get the benefit of kramonnati."
The Court emphasized that the offer of promotion, even if unaccepted, removes the element of institutional failure that justifies kramonnati. The appellant’s continued service in the same grade was therefore a result of personal choice, not administrative inaction.
The Court also rejected the appellant’s reliance on prior grants of kramonnati to similarly placed employees. It held that administrative errors in the past do not create a binding precedent or a right to equal treatment where the law is clear. The principle of negative equality - where past illegality is used to justify continued illegality - is not recognized in service jurisprudence.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a clear precedent: the mere offer of promotion, regardless of acceptance, terminates eligibility for kramonnati benefits. Practitioners representing government employees must now assess whether a promotion was formally offered and declined before advising on kramonnati claims. Any claim based on stagnation after a declined promotion is legally unsustainable.
The ruling also reinforces that past administrative irregularities cannot be invoked to override settled legal principles. Employers and service tribunals may now uniformly apply this standard, reducing litigation over inconsistent past practices. However, the judgment does not address cases where promotion offers were vague, conditional, or procedurally defective - leaving room for distinction in future cases involving procedural irregularities in promotion processes.
