Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/2508/2024 of PREMLATA TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 1 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH A T I N D O R E BEFORE HON'BLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHA T I N D OR E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMAON THE 1[st] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2508 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
PREMLATA TIWARI W/O SHRI RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED SUB INSPECTOR R/O 278 BHAGIRATHPURA NEAR MAMAJI KI DHARMSHALAL ROAD DISTT. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRIKRISHNAPAL SINGH KHICHI- ADVOCATE )
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE JAIL ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, DISTRICT – INDORE (MP)DISTRICT – INDORE (MP)
4.DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
–(BY SHRI A.S. PARIHAR PANEL LAWYER )
.....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
By the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that although he stood retired on 30/06/2016 and the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of that year, but he was not granted the said benefit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case has already been settled by the Supreme Court recently in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 (The Director {Admn. and HR KPTCK and Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.) wherein it has been held that benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 1st of July every year shall be paid to the employee who got retired on 30th of June of the said year, therefore, the present petitioner is also entitled to get the said benefit.
3. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamni (Supra), this petition is allowed, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added with effect from 01/07/2016 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue fresh PPO in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this Court.
4. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.
(PRANAY VERMA)JUDGE