Sohanlal Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12677 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. 19115 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SOHANLAL PANDEY S/O LATE SHRI JAGESHWAR
                           PRASAD   PANDEY,  AGED   ABOUT   74  YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: RETIRED SUB INSPECTOR FROM THE
                           OFFICE OF STSC POLICE STATION RAISEN R/O 35,
                           TENGORE NAGAR KHAJURI KALA ROAD, PIPLANI,
                           BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI AJEET SINGH - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT
                                 MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE M.P. OPPSITE
                                 LAL PARED GROUND JAHANGIRABAD BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (KARMIK) POLICE
                                 HEADQUARTERS BHOPAL DISTRICT (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           4.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER RAISEN DISTRICT
                                 RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER RAISEN DISTRICT
                                 RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL
Signing time: 07-08-2023
19:31:00
                                                                  2
                                                                  ORDER

By the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that although he stood

retired on 30.06.2010, the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of that year, but he was not granted the said benefit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 HR} KPTCL and Ors Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and 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 employee who got retired on 30th of June of the said year, therefore the

present petitioner is also entitled to get the said benefit.

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

4. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), this petition is allowed.

5. It is directed that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of 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 petitioner within a period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this order.

7. However, the petitioner had superannuated on 30.06.2010, thus the petitioner was a 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 was a fence-sitter, therefore by extending the benefit of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of The Director Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 07-08-2023 19:31:00

(Admn. and HR KPTCL) (supra), it is held that the petitioner shall not be entitled for arrears but shall only be entitled for refixation of pension payable in future.

9. With aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE TG /-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 07-08-2023 19:31:00