Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/1623/2024 of SODAN SINGH RAJPUT 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 SUBODH ABHYANKARON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1623 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1.SODAN SINGH RAJPUT S/O SHRI KALU SINGHRAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:RETIRED ASSISTANT TEACHER 312,PASHUPATINATH NAGAR, DISTRICT AGARMALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:RETIRED ASSISTANT TEACHER 312,PASHUPATINATH NAGAR, DISTRICT AGARMALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.BHAGIRATH SINGH BIJAPARI S/O GHASHIRAMBIJAPARI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:RETIRED ASSISTANT TEACHER THAKUR SERIPOST KANAD DISTRICT AGAR MALWA (MADHYAPRADESH)BIJAPARI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:RETIRED ASSISTANT TEACHER THAKUR SERIPOST KANAD DISTRICT AGAR MALWA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(SHRI K K KCHICHI APPEARED FOR PETITIONER.
)
.....PETITIONERS
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARYMINISTRY OF SCHOOL EDUCATIONDEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)MINISTRY OF SCHOOL EDUCATIONDEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.D I R E C T O R DIRECTORATE OF PUBLICINSTRUCTION (DPI) BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)INSTRUCTION (DPI) BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DEPARTMENTAGAR DISTRICT AGAR MALWA (MADHYAPRADESH)AGAR DISTRICT AGAR MALWA (MADHYAPRADESH)
4.DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER TREASURY ANDACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT AGAR MALWA(MADHYA PRADESH)ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT AGAR MALWA(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT, COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OFADVOCATE GENERAL).
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed thefollowing:
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 they stoodretired on 30/06/2022 and the annual increment was to be added on 1st of Julyof that year, but they were not granted the said benefit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involvedin 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 ofannual increment which was to be added on 1st of July every year shall be paidto the employee who got retired on 30th of June of the said year, therefore, thepresent petitioner is also entitled to get the said benefit.
3. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passedby Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamni (Supra), this petition isallowed, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of annual incrementwhich was to be added with effect from 01/07/2018 and recalculate the benefitof retiral dues and pension and issue fresh PPO in favour of the petitionerswithin a period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this Court.
4. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.
moni
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)JUDGE