Ram Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13405 MP

                                                      1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT GWALIOR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                            ON THE 17 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                          WRIT PETITION No. 20594 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAM KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI HARIRAM GUPTA,
                          AGED     62   YEARS, OCCUPATION:   PENSIONER
                          SEVANIVRAT GRAMIN KRASHI VISTAR ADHIKARI
                          KARYALAY VARISHTH KRASHI VIKAS ADHIKARI
                          VIKAS KHAND SEVDHA DISTRICT DATIA BAJARIYA
                          SEVDHA DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
                                SECRETARY, KISAN KALYAN TATHA KRISHI
                                VIKAS VIBHAG, GOVT. OF M.P. VALLABH
                                BHAWAN MANTRALAYA BHOPAL MP (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    SANCHALAK KISAN KALYA N KARSHI VIKASH
                                VIB HAG KARSHI BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    UP   SANCHALAK KARSHI VIKASH BHIBAGH
                                DATIA PURANI COLLECTORATE CIVIL LINE,
                                DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    ANUBHIBAGIYA    ADHIKARI KISAN KALYAN
                                KARSHI VIBHAG    RAJGHAT COLONY, DATIA
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    SAMBHAGIYA SAYUKT SANCHALAK, KOSH AVAM
                                LEKHA GWALIOR AVAM CHAMBAL SAMBHAG
                                MOTI MAHAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          6.    JILA KOSALAY     ADHIKARI DATIA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)


Signature Not Verified
                          7.    JILA   PENSION   ADHIKARI DATIA   (MADHYA
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 8/18/2023
6:44:48 PM
                                                               2
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI VISHAL TRIPATHI- 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 Village Agriculture Development Officer on 30-06-2020, 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, 2020, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2020.

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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 8/18/2023 6:44:48 PM

the Supreme Court.

4. Heard.

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. 01.07.2020 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: 8/18/2023 6:44:48 PM