Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Girish Narayan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 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 19 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 30747 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
DR. GIRISH NARAYAN SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI SHIV
NARAYAN SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED NARAYAN SADAN HEM SINGH
KI PARADE LASHKAR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRASHANT SINGH KAURAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
AYUSH, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR AYURVEDA, YOGA
AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDHA AND
HOMEOPATHY (AYUSH) DEPARTMENT, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, OFFICE OF
DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ROHIT SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
T h e instant petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India taking exception to the order Annexure P/1 passed by
District Pension Officer, Gwalior, whereby, the petitioner who retired as
Ayurved Chikitsa Adhkari in the year 2012 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 stands
retired on 30th June, 2012, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual
increment which was to be added on 01.07.2012.
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 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 behavior and efficiency then it appears that petitioner has made out his
case.
6. Resultantly, impugned order Annexure P/1 is hereby set aside and
respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to
be added w.e.f. 01.07.2012 and re-calculate 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 two months from the date of
submission of certified copy of this order.
7. Question of limitation in preferring the claim by the present petitioner
shall be open for the authorities to consider.
8. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
