Mohammed Aadil Qureshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10761 MP

                                  1
 IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                       ON THE 12 th OF JULY, 2023
                   WRIT PETITION No. 16020 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
MOHAMMED AADIL QURESHI S/O LATE SHRI M.H.
QURESHI, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED INSPECTOR R/O FLAT NO. 4 GULMOHAR
APARTMENT NEAR TAYABALI CHOWK NAPIER TOWN
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

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

2.    DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MADHYA
      P R A D E S H POLICE     HEADQUARTERS,
      JEHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    SUPERINTENDENT OF          POLICE,    SEONI SEONI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    DISTRICT PENSION         OFFICER,     SEONI SEONI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SWAPNIL GANGULY - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL )

      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 30.06.2014, 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 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 petitioner is also entitled to get the said benefit.

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

4. 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.

5. It is directed that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of annual

increment which was to be added with effect from 1st of July.

6. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to recalculate the 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.

7. However, the petitioner had superannuated on 30.06.2014, thus the petitioner 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.

8. Since the petitioner was a 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 shall not be entitled for arrears but shall only be entitled for refixation of pension payable in

future.

9. With aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Shanu

Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2023.07.12 19:16:41 +05'30'