Chandra Shekhar Chourey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 11530 MP

                                                                1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                                                ON THE 24 th OF JULY, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 17459 of 2023

                    BETWEEN:-
                    CHANDRA SHEKHAR CHOUREY S/O LATE GOVIND RAM
                    CHOUREY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
                    GOVT. SERVANT R/O 49, AZAD NAGAR, RAMESHWAR WARD,
                    KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....PETITIONER
                    (BY SHRI SHASHANK UPADHYAY - ADVOCATE)

                    AND
                    1.     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS PUBLIC
                           HEALTH AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT VALLABH
                           BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                    2.     THE   CHIEF  ENGINEER,  PUBLIC  HEALTH  AND
                           ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT JALBHAVAN BAAN GANGA,
                           BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                    3.     THE SUPERINTENDENT OF ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH
                           AND    ENGINEERING   DEPARTMENT     KHARGONE
                           KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                    4.     THE   CHIEF  ENGINEER, PUBLIC   HEALTH   AND
                           ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CIRCLE INDORE (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                    5.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH AND
                           ENGINEERING  DEPARTMENT,  KHANDWA DISTRICT
                           KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                    (BY SHRI ANUBHAV JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

B y the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that he stood retired on Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 26-07-2023 18:55:17

30.06.2010. 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. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.28105/2019 (after 9 years of retirement) for grant of increment, which

became due on 1st of July, 2002. The said writ petition was decided by order dated 22.07.2020 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 22.10.2020.

4. Thus, it is clear that first of all the petitioner approached this Court after 9 years and after rejection of his representation, he kept quite and now he has filed this writ petition after 13 years of his retirement.

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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. However, the petitioner had superannuated on 30.06.2010, thus the petitioner was a fence sitter and he did not approach the Court and it is well established principle of law Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 26-07-2023 18:55:17

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.

9. 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.

10. With aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE TG /-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 26-07-2023 18:55:17