Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 10108 MP
Judgement Date : 4 July, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 4 th OF JULY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 14552 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
DR. PRAMOD KUMAR SHUKLA S/O LATE SHREE
MAJARAJ DEEN SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED AYURVED MEDICAL OFFICER
R/O NEAR THE GHANTA GHAR MAIHAR TEHSIL
MAIHAR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI D.K. SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL. R/O
VINDHYANCHAL BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER AYUSH DEPARTMENT SATPURA
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER SATNA DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER SATNA DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI LALIT JOGLEKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that although he stood
retired on 30.06.2017 and the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of that year, but he was not granted the said benefit. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 7/5/2023 2:31:35 PM
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. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly inasmuch as, accordingly to the petitioner's own showing he was superannuated way back on 30.06.2017.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the benefits to the petitioner cannot be declined inasmuch as, the extension of benefit of increments is recurring cause of action having direct nexus with the pecuniary benefits for which, the petitioner is entitled. [Please See: M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India (1995 5 SCC 628)]
5. 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 01.07.2017 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.
6. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE sp Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 7/5/2023 2:31:35 PM
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 7/5/2023 2:31:35 PM
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!