Naval Singh Marke vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13227 MP

                           1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
               ON THE 14th OF AUGUST, 2023
              WRIT PETITION No. 19039 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

NAVAL SINGH MARKE S/O SHRI BALDEV SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL
DHANI R/O VILLAGE HARFARI, TEHSIL
CHITRANGI, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
                                                 .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI M.P.SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)

AND

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

2.    COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    DISTRICT    EDUCATION         OFFICER,
      SINGRAULI    DISTRICT       SINGRAULI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    DISTRICT TREASURY AND PENSION
      OFFICER,     SINGRAULI     DISTRICT
      SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                               .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NAVEEN DUBEY - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
                                     2


      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 30.06.2023, 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 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. With aforesaid direction, the petition stands allowed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

HEMANT SARAF 2023.08.14 19:39:54 +05'30' HS