WP/18699/2023 of FARUKH MOHAMMAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 28 February 2025

ORDER

The instant petition has been preferred by petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioners Farukh Mohammad, Teacher retired on 30.06.2020, Mohan Lal Rathor, Teacher, retired on 30.06.2021, Kunj Bihari, Assistant Teacher, retired on 30.06.2014, Khalil Mohammad, Head Master, retired on 30.06.2021 and Ramesh Singh, Teacher, retired on 30.06.2022 were denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that whether a government employee retiring on 30th June of a year is entitled to avail the benefit of increment as fixed on 1st of July is being decided by the Supreme Court

UPADHYAY

recently in the case of the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 dated 11.04.2023, wherein after considering the judgments of different High Courts including the Madhya Pradesh High Court it has been held that benefit of annual increment which is to be added on 1st of July every year shall be paid to the employee who is going to be retired on 30th June of the said year. It is further submitted that controversy is now no longer res integra. The present petitioners stood retired on 30th June, 2020, 30th June, 2021, 30th June, 2014 and 30.06.2022, therefore, they are entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2014 01.07.2020, 01.07.2021 and 01.07.2022 respectively as per their dates of retirement.

3. Learned counsel for respondent/State could not dispute the passing of said order. However, he submits that it appears that SLP arising out of judgment of Division Bench of this Court is still pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

4. Heard.

5. After going through the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), in para 6.3 and 6.7 it appears that the view of M.P. High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh has been considered in favour of employee who is retiring on 30th June of that year. Once the Apex Court has decided the controversy and found the employee entitled for the benefit of approval of entitlement to receive increment while rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiency then it appears that petitioner has made out his case.

6. Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual

UPADHYAY

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2014 01.07.2020, 01.07.2021 and 01.07.2022 respectively as per their dates of retirement, and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension etc. and issue fresh pension payment order in favour of the petitioners, if not already issued, that too within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.

7. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms. Vishal

UPADHYAY