Ghanshyam Das Talreja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13059 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. 3311 of 2021

                          BETWEEN:-
                          GHANSHYAM DAS TALREJA S/O SHRI HEERALAL
                          TALREJA, AGED 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PENSIONER
                          R/O KHANDWE BUILDING BEHRA PANDIT SANTAR
                          MORAR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI GAURAV MISHRA)

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

                          2.    EXECUTIVE       ENGINEER    PUBLIC  WORKS
                                D E PA R T M E N T DIVISION  NO.1  GWALIOR
                                DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER GWALIOR DISTRICT
                                GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI MAN SINGH JADON- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

The instant petition has been preferred by petitioner, under Article 227 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 Assistant Grade-2 on 30.06.2020, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 8/10/2023 5:37:14 PM

entitled.

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 stands retired on 30th June, 2020, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2020.

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.

Heard.

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

case.

Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2020 and re-calculate 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.

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