Murari Lal Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9246 MP

                                                             1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                                 ON THE 20 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 12894 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          MURARI LAL GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI PYARE LAL GUPTA,
                          AGED 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PENSIONER R/O
                          KACHHI GALI NEW COLONY KARERA, DISTRICT
                          SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION
                                DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    DISTRICT    EDUCATION   OFFICER DISTRICT
                                SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    DISTRICT PENSION     OFFICER,  MANDSAUR
                                DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    DISTRICT    TREASURY    OFFICER DISTRICT
                                SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI VISHAL TRIPATHI- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
                          RESPONDENT/STATE)

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

The instant petition has been preferred by petitioner, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 6/21/2023 11:26:51 AM

not extending the benefit of increment The petitioner, who retired as Assistant Teacher from Govt. Primary School Jujhai, Janapad Karera, District Shivpuri on 30.06.2021, 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, 2021, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2021.

Learned counsel for respondent/State could not dispute the passing of s aid 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 6/21/2023 11:26:51 AM

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, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2021 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 Vishal

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 6/21/2023 11:26:51 AM