Virendra Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 21317 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Virendra Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2023

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                            ON THE 13 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 25934 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN S/O SHRI BABULALJI JAIN,
                           AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O 32
                           SANJEET NAKA PATEL NAGAR MANDSAUR (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI AKSHAY BHONDE, LEARNED COUNSEL)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
                                 SECRETARY ENERGY DEPARTMENT VALLABH
                                 BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    SHRIMAN MAHAPRABANDHAK MAHODAY (M.D.
                                 M A H O D AY) MADHYA  PRADESH   PASCHIM
                                 KSHETRA       VITARAN   COMPANY     LTD.
                                 POLOGROUND INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    SHRIMAN    MAHAPRABANDHAK      MAHODAY
                                 MADHYA PRADESH POWER MANAGEMENT
                                 COMPANY LIMITED SHAKTI BHAWAN, JABALPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    SHRIMAN PRABANDAK/ MUKHYA/ KARYAPALAN
                                 YANTRI    MAHODAY     (SANCHALAN AVAM
                                 S AN D HAR AN ) MADHYA PRADESH PASCHIM
                                 KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN COMPANY LTD.
                                 MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                           (MS. BHARTI LAKKAD, LEARNED GA FOR THE STATE) (SHRI PRASANNA
                           PRASAD, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO.2-4)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 13-12-2023
16:11:28
                                                                  2
                                                                  ORDER

By the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that although he stood retired on 30/6/2016 and the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of that year, but he was not granted the said benefit.

2. Learned counsel for the 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 & 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. 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, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added with effect from 01.07.2016 and recalculate the benefit of 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.

4. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE soumya