Dr.Saiyed Ghazanafar Ishtiaque vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8846 MP

                                1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                           BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                     ON THE 15 th OF JUNE, 2023
                  WRIT PETITION No. 11440 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
DR.SAIYED GHAZANAFAR ISHTIAQUE S/O LATE S.ALI
ISHTIAQUE, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PENSIONER RETIRED AS SUPDT.UNANI PHARMACY
BHOPAL/INCHARGE    DY.DIRECTOR    UNANI    41
MAHAVEER COLONY GOLA KA MANDIR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                           .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANIL SHARMA-ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
      SECRETARY VALLABH    BHAWAN   BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF
      FINANCE   DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH
      SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

4.    THE DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER THE STATE OF
      MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MAAN SINGH JADON-GOVT. ADVOCATE)

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

T h e instant petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India taking exception to the order dated 2.5.2019 Annexure P/1 passed by Under Secretary, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Ayush Department, Bhopal whereby, the petitioner who retired as Superintendent, Unani Pharmacy Bhopal from Department of Ayush, Bhopal on 30.06.2016 was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that whether a government employee retiring on 30th June of a year is entitled to avail the benefit of increment as fixed on 1st of July is being decided by the Supreme Court recently in the case of the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 dated 11.04.2023,

wherein after considering the judgments of different High Courts including the Madhya Pradesh High Court it has been held that benefit of annual increment which is to be added on 1st of July every year shall be paid to the employee who is going to be retired on 30th June of the said year. It is further submitted that controversy is now no longer res integra. The present petitioner stands retired on 30th June, 2016, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 1.7.2022.

Learned counsel for respondent/State could not dispute the passing of said order. However, he submits that it appears that SLP arising out of judgment of Division Bench of this Court is still pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

Heard.

After going through the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), in para 6.3 and 6.7 it appears that the view of M.P. High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria and ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh has been considered in favour of employee who is

retiring on 30th June of that year. Once the Apex Court has decided the controversy and found the employee entitled for the benefit of approval of entitlement to receive increment while rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiency then it appears that petitioner has made out his case.

Resultantly, impugned order dated 2.5.2019 is hereby set aside and respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 1.7.2022 and re-calculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension etc. and issue fresh pension payment order in favour of the petitioner, if not already issued, that too within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.

Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Van

VANDANA VERMA 2023.06.16 18:32:23 -07'00'