Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/31456/2023 of DALCHAND SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKEON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 31456 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
DALCHAND SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI BABULALSHARMA, AGED-68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIREDGOVT SERVANT R/O PATEL NAGAR CITY CENTERDISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI D.S. RAGHUWANSHI- ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPALSECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FARMER WELFAREAND AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT,VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH)AND AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT,VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH)
3.DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER, DISTRICTGWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SOHIT MISHRA- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
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.
ORDER
1. The instant petition has been preferred by petitioner, under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondentsfor not extending the benefit of increment. Petitioner, who retired on30.06.2015, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.
2 . Learned counsel for petitioner submits that whether a governmentemployee retiring on 30th June of a year is entitled to avail the benefit ofincrement as fixed on 1st of July is being decided by the Supreme Courtrecently 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 theMadhya Pradesh High Court it has been held that benefit of annual incrementwhich is to be added on 1st of July every year shall be paid to the employeewho is going to be retired on 30th June of the said year. It is further submittedthat controversy is now no longer res integra. The present petitioner stoodretired on 30th June, 2015, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annualincrement which was to be added on 01.07.2015. The said aspect has also beendealt with by the Full Bench of this Court also in the case of Ratanlal RathoreVs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Writ Petition No.4118 of2020) decided on 28.07.2023.
3. Learned counsel for respondent/State could not dispute the passing ofsaid order. However, he submits that it appears that SLP arising out ofjudgment of Division Bench of this Court is still pending consideration beforethe Supreme Court.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documentsappended thereto.
5. After going through the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in thecase 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 employeewho is retiring on 30th June of that year. Once the Apex Court as well as Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ratanlal Rathore (supra) has decided thecontroversy and found the employee entitled for the benefit of approval ofentitlement to receive increment while rendering the services over a year withgood behaviour and efficiency then it appears that petitioner has made out hiscase.
6 . Resultantly, the order dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed byrespondent no.1, is hereby quashed and respondents are directed to grant thebenefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2015 andrecalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension etc. and issue fresh pensionpayment order in favour of the petitioner, if not already issued, that too within aperiod of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of thisorder.
7. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
Chandni
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)JUDGE