Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/1611/2024 of ISHWAR LAL PANDYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1611 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. ISHWAR LAL PANDYA S/O SHRI SHIV SHANKARPANDYA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:RETIRED ASSTT.TEACHER R/O VILLAGEBAGHERA, TEHSIL TARANA, (MADHYA PRADESH)PANDYA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:RETIRED ASSTT.TEACHER R/O VILLAGEBAGHERA, TEHSIL TARANA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. LAXMI NARAYAN SWARNAKAR S/O SHRISHANKAR LAL SWARNAKAR, AGED ABOUT 73YEARS, OCCUPATION: RET. BLOCK EDUCATIONOFFICER 196, VRINDAVAN DHAM COLONY,INDORE ROAD, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)SHANKAR LAL SWARNAKAR, AGED ABOUT 73YEARS, OCCUPATION: RET. BLOCK EDUCATIONOFFICER 196, VRINDAVAN DHAM COLONY,INDORE ROAD, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE FOR THE PETITIONER )
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARYVALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTORATE, DIRECTORATE OF PUBLICINSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH)INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH)
3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DEPARTMENTUJJAIN DIST. UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)UJJAIN DIST. UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER TREASURY ANDACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT DISTRICT UJJAIN(MADHYA PRADESH)ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT DISTRICT UJJAIN(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KUSHAL GOYAL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction,directing the respondents to grant him annual increment fell due on 01.07.2013& 01.07.2020. The petitioners retired from service on 30.06.2013 & 30.06.2020respectively, after attaining the age of superannuation.
02. It has been stated in the petitioner that the issue involved in thepresent case has already been settled on 11.04.2023 by the Supreme Courtrecently in the case of Director (Admn. & HR) KPTCK & Others v/s C.P.Mundinamani & Others [Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 @ SLP (C)No.6185 of 2020] reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 296, wherein it has beenheld that the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 1st of Julyevery year shall be paid to the employee who got retired on 30th of June of thesaid year, therefore, the present petitioners are also entitled to get the saidbenefit.
03. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passed bythe Supreme Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), the respondentsare directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added witheffect from 01.07.2013 & 01.07.2020 and recalculate the benefit of retiral duesand pension and issue fresh Pension Payment Order (PPO) in favour of thepetitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certifiedcopy of this order.
04. Since there is a delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching thisCourt, thus they shall not be entitled for entire arrears / interest, however, thesame shall be payable to them from the last three years as well as due annualincrement only. PPO be accordingly revised.
05. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition stands allowed.
Ravi
(VIVEK RUSIA)JUDGE