Madhya Pradesh High Court
Girraj Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 August, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 3 rd OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 13897 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
GIRRAJ SHARMA S/O LT BHOLA RAM SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED GOVT.
SERVANT ) HEAD CLERK FARMER WELFARE AND
AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT DEPP. GWALIOR
DIVISION GWALIOR BEHIND HARIRAJ TALKIES
KANSANA GALI VANKHANDI ROAD SHIV NAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI BRIJESH SHARMA-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY MANTRALAYA, VALLAB BHAWAN
BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR FARMER WELFARE AND
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT VINDHYACHAL
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JOINT DIRECTOR FARMER WELFARE AND
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT GWALIOR
DIVISION GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DIVISION/ DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER
DIRECTORATE OF PENSION GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA DIXIT-GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
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 respondents
for not extending the benefit of increment. Petitioner, who retired on
30.06.2012, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.
2 . Learned counsel for petitioner submits that whether a government
employee retiring on 30th June of a year is entitled to avail the benefit of
increment as fixed on 1st of July is being decided by the Supreme Court
recently 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 the
Madhya Pradesh High Court it has been held that benefit of annual increment
which is to be added on 1st of July every year shall be paid to the employee
who is going to be retired on 30th June of the said year. It is further submitted
that controversy is now no longer res integra. The present petitioner stood
retired on 30th June, 2012, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual
increment which was to be added on 01.07.2012.
3. Learned counsel for respondent/State could not dispute the passing of
said order. However, he submits that it appears that SLP arising out of
judgment of Division Bench of this Court is still pending consideration before
the 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 the
case 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 employee who is retiring
on 30th June of that year. Once the Apex Court has decided the controversy
and found the employee entitled for the benefit of approval of entitlement to
receive increment while rendering the services over a year with good behaviour
and efficiency then it appears that petitioner has made out his case.
6 . Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual
increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2012 and recalculate the benefit
of retiral dues and pension etc. and issue fresh pension payment order in favour
of the petitioner, if not already issued, that too within a period of three months
from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
7. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Van
VANDANA VERMA
2023.08.04
10:32:02 -07'00'
