Devi Singh Pawar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12649 MP

                                                       1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                                             ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 18838 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    DEVI SINGH PAWAR S/O SHRI PRATAP SINGH
                                 PAWAR, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 RETIRED PRINCIPAL GOVT. GIRLS HIGHER
                                 SECONDARY SCHOOL PIPARIYA DISTRICT
                                 NARMADAPURAM     R/O  PACHMADI    ROAD,
                                 PIPARIYA,   DISTRICT    NARMADAPURAM
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    LAKHANLAL VERMA S/O SHRI GOKUL PRASAD
                                 VERMA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 RETIRED    ASSISTANT     DIRECTOR, PUBLIC
                                 INSTRUCTION   O/O  DISTRICT    EDUCATION
                                 OFFICER, DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM R/O
                                 PACHMADI    ROAD,    PIPARIYA,   DISTRICT
                                 NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    RAMESH    CHANDRA    NEHAR   S/O  SHRI
                                 NATHURAM NEHAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: RETIRED ASSISTANT TEACHER,
                                 GOVT. NAGAR PALIKA HIGHER SECONDARY
                                 SCHOOL PIPARIYA R/O INDRAGANDHI WARD,
                                 PIPARIYA,   DISTRICT    NARMADAPURAM
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    LAXMAN SINGH RANE S/O SHRI BABULAL RANE,
                                 AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
                                 ASSISTANT HEAD MASTER GOVT. MIDDLE
                                 SCHOOL       MOKALWADA,         DISTRICT
                                 NARMADAPURAM     R/O   PACHMADI    ROAD,
                                 PIPARIYA,   DISTRICT     NARMADAPURAM
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                             .....PETITIONERS
                           (BY SHRI HEMANT KUMAR BHANNAWAR - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL
Signing time: 10-08-2023
18:11:40
                                                              2
                                 SCHOOL   EDUCATION          DISTRICT       BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    C O M M I S S I O N E R , PUBLIC    INSTRUCTION
                                 PUSHTAK        BHAWAN,       BHOPAL    (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    THE   DISTRICT   EDUCATION   OFFICER,
                                 NARM ADAPURAM DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    THE    ACCOUNTANT     GENERAL, GWALIOR
                                 DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    THE    DISTRICT/TREASURER, ACCOUNT AND
                                 PENSION DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           6.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, NARMADAPURAM
                                 DISTRICT    NARMADAPURAM       (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVCOATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

By the instant petition, the petitioners are claiming that although they stood retired o n 30.06.2016, 30.6.2021, 30.6.2023 and 30.6.2022 respectively the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of that year, but they were not granted the said benefit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 H R KPTCL} a nd Ors Vs . C.P. Mundinamani a nd 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 employees who got retired on 30th of June of the said year, therefore the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 10-08-2023 18:11:40

present petitioners are also entitled to get the said benefit.

3. No other argument is advanced by the counsel for the petitioners.

4. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court i n c as e o f C.P. Mundinamani (supra), this petition is allowed .

5. It is directed that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit o f annual increment which was to be added with effect from 1st of July.

6. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to recalculate the retiral dues and pension and issue fresh PPO in favour of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this order. 4

7. However, the petitioner no.1 had superannuated o n 30.6.2016, thus petitioner no.1 was fence sitter and he did not approach the Court and it is well established principle of law that the Court can deny relief to similarly situated person, who was not vigilant for his rights and approached the Court by waking up only after the rights of vigilant litigants were adjudicated by the court.

8. Since the petitioner no.1 was fence sitter, therefore, b y extending the benefit of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR KPTCL) (supra), it is held that the petitioner no.1 shall not be entitled for arrears but shall only be entitled for refixation of pension payable in future.

9. With aforesaid direction, the petition stands allowed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE TG /-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 10-08-2023 18:11:40