Kishan Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10193 MP

                                                       1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                                               ON THE 5 th OF JULY, 2023
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 15221 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    KISHAN SINGH THAKUR S/O LATE SHRI BHANU
                                 PRATAP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: RETIRED GOVT. EMPLOYEE E- 38/1
                                 SHASHTRI MARG KACHNAR CITY NEAR VIJAY
                                 NAGA PARK DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    NARAYAN SINGH PARIHAR S/O LATE SHRI
                                 BHANU PRATAP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: RETIRED GOVT. EMPLOYEE 102 B-4
                                 KOUSHALYA EXOTICA APARTMENT VIJAY
                                 NAGAR    DISTRICT   JABALPUR    (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                              .....PETITIONERS
                           (BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                                 FINANCE DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                 PRINCIPAL      SECRETARY      GENERAL
                                 ADMINISTRATION     DEPARTMENT VALLABH
                                 BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MADHYA
                                 PRADESH      POLICE      HEADQUARTERS
                                 JEHANGIRABAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    SUPERINTENDENT      OF   POLICE JABALPUR
                                 DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    DISTRICT    PENSION    OFFICER JABALPUR
                                 JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 07-07-2023
11:50:04
                                                                 2
                                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI ANUBHAV JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
                           RESPONDENTS/STATE)

                                  This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                 ORDER

By the instant petition, the petitioners are claiming that although they stood retired on 30.06.2016 and 30.06.2021 respectively the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of that year, but they were not granted the said benefit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 and 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 petitioners are also entitled to get the said benefit.

3. No other argument is advanced by the counsel for the petitioners.

4. The petitioner no.1 had superannuated on 30.6.2016, thus petitioner no.1 was a fence sitter and he did not approach the Court and it is well established principle of law that the Court can deny relief to similarly situated person, who was not vigilant for his rights and approached the Court by waking up only after the rights of vigilant litigants were adjudicated by the court.

5. Since the petitioner No.1 was fence sitter, therefore by extending the benefit of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR KPTCL) (supra), it is held that the petitioner no.1 shall not be entitled for arrears but shall only be entitled for refixation of pension Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 07-07-2023 11:50:04

payable in future.

5. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), this petition so far as it relates to petitioner no.2 is allowed, directing the respondents to grant benefit of annual increment which was to be added with effect from 01.07.2021 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue fresh PPO in favour of the petitioner no.2 within a period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this order.

5. With the aforesaid, the petition stands partly allowed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE HS

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 07-07-2023 11:50:04