WP/2441/2024 of BAIJNATH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 5 February 2024

ORDER

1. The instant petition has been preferred by petitioner, under Article 226of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondentsfor not extending the benefit of increment. Petitioner, who retired on30.06.2021, 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, 2021, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annualincrement which was to be added on 01.07.2021. 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 documents appended 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 theview 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 FullBench 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. As per judgement of Apex Court in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, AIR Online2022 SC 735, it is clarified that petitioner shall be entitled to arrears for threeyears prior to the date of filing of the Writ Petition.

7 . Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annualincrement which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2021 and recalculate the benefitof retiral dues and pension etc. and issue fresh pension payment order in favourof the petitioner, if not already issued, that too within a period of three monthsfrom the date of submission of certified copy of this order.

8. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

Van

VANDANA VERMA

(ANAND PATHAK)JUDGE