Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhawar Lal Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 2060 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
BHAWAR LAL CHOUDHARY S/O LATE SHRI NANU RAM
CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED HEAD MASTER GOVT MIDDLE SCHOOL
MORDA TEHSIL RATLAM, DIST. RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI KHEN CHAND RAIKWAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VIBHAG
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER RATLAM
DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.8769/2023, which is an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
02. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the
delay of 538 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
03. By filing the instant writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya
Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nayapith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the
appellant has assailed the order dated 05.08.2020 passed in Writ Petition
No.10642/2020, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.
04. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant (petitioner in the writ
petition) aggrieved by non-grant of annual increment, approached this Court
seeking redressal of their grievance. The appellant retired from service on
30.06.2016. Under the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations, the date of
annual increment was fixed for every employee as 1st of July. The appellant
who had worked for whole year from 1st of July to 30th of June has been
denied the benefit of annual increment which was due on 1st of July. However,
the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single
Judge.
05. The issue in this writ appeal is no more res integra and has already
been settled by the Supreme Court recently in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023
(The Director {Admn. and HR KPTCK} and Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani
& 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 appellant is also entitled
to get the said benefit.
06. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passed by
the Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), this writ appeal is
allowed. The impugned order dated 05.05.2020 passed in W.P.
No.10642/2020 is hereby quashed and set aside.
07. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment
which was to be added with effect from 1st of July after the appellant retired
and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue fresh PPO in
favour of the appellant within a period of three months from the date of
submitting certified copy of this order.
08. With the aforesaid direction, this appeal, stands disposed off.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shilpa
