Sukhdeo Dharpure vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12756 MP

                          1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
               ON THE 8th OF AUGUST, 2023
              WRIT PETITION No. 19149 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

SUKHDEO    DHARPURE   S/O  LATE    SHRI
RADHELAL DHARPURE, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED BAIB TEHSILDAR R/O
PURANA GURAIYA NAKA, GURAIYA ROAD ,
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JAIDEEP SIRPURKAR - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
      THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
      REVENUE   DEPARTMENT     VALLABH
      BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE       PRINCIPAL         REVENUE
      COMMISSIONER    DISTRICT     BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    COMMISSIONER        OF     PENSION
      DIRECTORATE    OF   TREASURY   AND
      ACCOUNTS 26 KISAN BHAWAN MANDI
      BOARD PARISAR JAIL ROAD ARERA HILLS
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    THE COMMISSIONER LAND RECORD AND
      SETTLEMENT    OFFICER    DISTRICT
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    THE COLLECTOR LAND RECORDS AND
      SETTLEMENT OFFICER DISTRICT SATNA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                            .....RESPONDENTS
                                     2


(BY SHRI SWAPNIL GANGULY - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed

the following:

                                    ORDER

By the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that although he stood retired on 30.06.2015, 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 employees who got retired on 30th of June of the said year, therefore the present petitioners are 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 petitioners within a period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this order.

7. However, the petitioner had superannuated on 30.6.2015, thus 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 (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 direction, the petition stands allowed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

HEMANT SARAF 2023.08.11 15:24:28 +05'30' HS