Yasin Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 11355 MP

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
                                               ON THE 20 th OF JULY, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 13378 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          YASIN KHAN S/O SHEIKH ALINUDDEEN, AGED ABOUT
                          65    YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED ASSISTANT
                          TEACHER VILLAGE RAMPUR TAH DHIMARKHEDA
                          DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI DHARMESH CHATURVEDI - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                DEPUTY SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT
                                MANTRALAYA BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    COMMISSIONER,    PUBLIC   INSTRUCTION
                                INSTITUTION MANTRALAYA GAUTAM NAGAR
                                BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    DISTRICT     EDUCATION      OFFICER KATNI
                                DISTRICT- KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DHIMARKHEDA
                                DISTRICT- KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    PRINCIPAL GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL DHIMARKHEDA
                                DISTRICT- KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          6.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER KATNI DISTRICT-
                                KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI A.P. SINGH - GOVT. ADVOCATE )

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: GEETHA NAIR
Signing time: 7/20/2023
4:50:43 PM
                                                                  2
                                                                  ORDER

The issue in the present petition is with regard to entitlement of annual increment to the employee on the event of retirement.

This issue has been earlier considered in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others (Civil Appeal No.4349/2023), reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 401 wherein the Supreme Court has held thus :-

"21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of

retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."

The same has been relied upon in the case of Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Com. Ltd. and another vs. S.R. Ramchandran and others (SLP (C) No.8219/2020) and the Supreme Court has held thus :-

"Mr. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellant's seeks to distinguish this authority by pointing out that Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997 is different from Rule 10 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules,2008 as also Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh (Pay Revision) Rules, 2009 and Rule 10 of Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules,2008.

We have gone through these rules and in our opinion, though these Rules are differently phrased, they have the same import, on the strength of which the Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 7/20/2023 4:50:43 PM

Co-ordinate Bench had dismissed the petition of the employer. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders assailed in this set of petitions and these petitions shall stand dismissed."

Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra ) and S.R. Ramchandran (supra), this petition is allowed, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added with effect from 01.07.2018 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.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE gn

Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 7/20/2023 4:50:43 PM