Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Abida Begum vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 December, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 7 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 29698 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT ABIDA BEGUM W/O LATE SHRI SHAFIQ
MOHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
FAMLIY PENSIONER HOUSE NO 11 TARAGANJ ROAD
GWALIOR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.K. PRAJAPATI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE CONTROLLER GOVERNMENT PRINTING
AND STATIONARY MAIDA MIL ROAD, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. TREASURY AND ACCOUNT DEPARTMENT
THROGH ITS JOINT DIRECTOR CHAMBAL
G WA L I O R DIVISION GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. PADAMSHREE AGARWAL - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. The instant petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking benefits of increment which have been due on 1st
July. Petitioner's husband was retired employee of Government Printing Press
and has been retired on 30.06.2011. Petitioner's husband passed away on
20.11.2018.
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's husband
stood retired on 30.06.2011, therefore, her late husband is entitled to avail the
benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2011. 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
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
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 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, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual
increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2011 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
Van
