Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 11529 MP
Judgement Date : 24 July, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 24 th OF JULY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 17233 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAM KISHORE PANDEY S/O LATE SHRI RAM AASRE
PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED SUB INSPECTOR DISTRICT POLICE FORCE
(SPECIAL FORCE) DISTRICT DAMOH CIVIL WARD NO. 2
INDRA COLONY DAMOH DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SUNIL GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY HOME AFFAIR VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE M.P. POLICE
HEAD QUARTER JAHANGIRABAD BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DAMOH
DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, DAMOH DISTRICT
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GULAB K PATEL)
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 30.06.2020 and the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/25/2023 11:41:31 AM
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 & 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, according to the
petitioner's own showing he was superannuated on 30.06.2020.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, firstly 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 01.07.2020 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) Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/25/2023 11:41:31 AM
JUDGE vivek
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/25/2023 11:41:31 AM
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!