Rajaram Chokotiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13058 MP

                                                      1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                            ON THE 10 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                          WRIT PETITION No. 18460 of 2020

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAJARAM     CHOKOTIYA  S/O    SHRI LALSINGH
                          CHOKOTIYA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          RET. DATE ENTRY OPERATOR, R/O GRAM AND POST
                          HASTINAPUR THASIL MURAR BLOCK MURAR
                          DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI NEERAJ SHRIVASTAVA- ADVOCATE)

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

                          2.    COM M I S S I ON ER (BHOO- ABHILEKH) AND
                                BANDOBAST, MOTI MAHAL GWALIOR (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    COLLECTOR (BHOO- ABHILEKH)      DISTRICT
                                DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    THASILDAR    BHANDER      DISTRICT   DATIA
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    SHAMBAGIYA SAYUKT SANCHALAK, KOSH EVAM
                                LEKHA, GWALIOR AND CHAMBAL SAMBHAG,
                                MOTIMAHAL GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          6.    JILA KOSALAY ADHIKARI     DATIA DISTRICT
                                DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          7.    JILA PENSION ADHIKARI DATIA DISTRICT DATIA
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 8/10/2023
5:37:14 PM
                                                       2
                          (BY SHRI MAN SINGH JADON- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
                          RESPONDENT/STATE)

                                 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. The petitioner, who retired as Data Entry Operator on 30-06-2015, 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, 2015, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2015.

3. Learned counsel for respondent/State could not dispute the passing of s aid 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.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 8/10/2023 5:37:14 PM

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. 01.07.2015 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 Vishal

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 8/10/2023 5:37:14 PM