Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8267 MP
Judgement Date : 22 June, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 22nd OF JUNE, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 11503 of 2022
Between:-
MUKESH JAIN S/O LATE SHRI ROOPSINGH JAIN
, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED AS A ASSISTANT GRADE-III R/O H.NO.
518SHARAFA WARD JABALPUR, M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANISH KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH SECRETARY, PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WELFARE
D EPARTM EN T DIVISION JABALPUR (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER JABALPUR
DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K. S. BAGHEL, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature SAN Not Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, Verified
Digitally signed by making a prayer to direct respondents to pay annual increment to petitioner MONSI M SIMON Date: 2022.06.23 10:59:37 IST
which fell due on 17.7.2021 and also to pay interest of 6% per annum.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that identical matter has been considered and decided by Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.363/2020 vide order dated 6.3.2020. Case of petitioner is identical to that of W.A No.363/2020 and, therefore, petitioner is entitled to same relief.
Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State submitted that representation preferred by petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Division Bench of this court in W.A No.363/2020 vide order dated
6.3.2020 held as under in para-11:-
"11. In the case at hand, the respondent having worked the entire year, cannot be deprived of increment, merely because he stood retired on 30th June and increment fell due on 1st July. Looking from another angle, the year which starts from 1st of July ends on 30th June of ensuing year, and not on 1st July. In view whereof, the petitioner is rightly held entitled for adding increment which fell due on 1st July."
In view of aforesaid judgment, petitioner is entitled for one increment which fell due on 1.7.2021. Accordingly, respondents are directed to grant petitioner one increment which fell due on 1.7.2021.
Writ petition filed by petitioner is allowed to the aforesaid extent. C.C as per rules.
Signature Not
SAN
Verified (VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by mms
MONSI M SIMON
Date: 2022.06.23
10:59:37 IST
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
MONSI M SIMON
Date: 2022.06.23
10:59:37 IST
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!