Shyam Lal Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 20172 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shyam Lal Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2023

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                                      1
                           IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT GWALIOR
                                                   BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                          ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                         WRIT PETITION No. 29658 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SHYAM LAL BAGHEL S/O LATE SHRI LALSINGH
                          BAGHEL, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          PENSIONER     (RETRIED  PRADHAN    ADHYAPAK
                          SHASKIYA PRATHMIK VIDHYALAYA GWALIOR NAGAR
                          (M.P.)  SANKUL    KENDRA   SHASKIYA   KANYA
                          UCHCHATAR MADHYAMIK VIDHYALAYA GWALIOR
                          D.D.O/ B.E.O. MURAR DISTRICT GWALIOR) B-104
                          ANAND NAGAR, GIRRAJ PARK KE PASS, SAGARTAL
                          ROAD, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
                                SECRETARY GOVT. OF M.P. VALLABH BHAWAN
                                BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    JILA SHIKSHA ADHIKARI DISTRICT GWALIOR
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    BLOCK SHIKSHA ADHIKARI (D.D.O) MURAR
                                DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    SAMBHAGIY SANYUKT SANCHALAK KOSH AND
                                LEKHA GWALIOR CHAMBAL RAJSV BHAWAN
                                HARISHANKARPURAM    GWALIOR  (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          5.    JILA KOSALAY ADHIKARI GWALIOR DISTRICT
                                GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          6.    JILA PENSION ADHIKARI GWALIOR DISTRICT
                                GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 12/2/2023
10:10:53 AM
                                                       2
                          (BY SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)

                                Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                               ORDER

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. Petitioner, who retired on 30.06.2010, 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, 2010, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2010. The said aspect has also been dealt with by the Full Bench of this Court also in the case of Ratanlal Rathore Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Writ Petition No.4118 of 2020) decided on 28.07.2023.

3. Learned counsel for respondent/State could not dispute the passing of said 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 the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

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 as well as Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ratanlal Rathore (supra) 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, the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2010 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.

8. Certified copy as per Rules.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu