Ram Kumar Thakur R.K. Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14274 MP

                                                             1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                                                ON THE 29 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 21556 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAM KUMAR THAKUR (R.K. THAKUR) S/O TILLU SINGH
                           THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O WARD NO.3 AUTHATKHAPI
                           NEAR RAM MANDIR DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI ASHISH VISHWAKARMA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                 PRINCIPAL       SECRETARY      GENERAL
                                 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA
                                 VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    THE COLLECTOR M ANDLA DISTRICT MANDLA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER DISTRICT
                                 MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    THE DISTRICT PENSIONER OFFICER DISTRICT
                                 MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI K.S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

By the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that although he stood

retired on 30.06.2015, annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of that Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 29-08-2023 18:11:04

year, but he was not granted the said benefit.

2. Learned counsel for 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 employee 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 counsel for 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 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. However, petitioner had superannuated on 30.06.2015 respectively, thus petitioner was 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 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 petitioner shall not be entitled for arrears but shall only be entitled for refixation of pension payable in future.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 29-08-2023 18:11:04

9. With aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE vc

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 29-08-2023 18:11:04