Shriniwas Bhaskar Sheode vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9625 MP

                                                             1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                                 ON THE 26 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 4733 of 2021

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SHRINIWAS BHASKAR SHEODE S/O BHASKAR SHEODE,
                          AGED 70 YEARS, R/O BASE GATE INSIDE THE FORT
                          VIDISHA, DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI S.G. CHITNIS- ADVOCATE)

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

                          2.    THE DISTRICT PENSION OFFICE               THROUGH
                                DISTRICT TREASURY, VIDISHA, M.P.

                          3.    DISTRICT EDUCATION   OFFICER ADDRESS
                                DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICE, VIDISHA, M.P.
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI MAN SINGH JADON- 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 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioner, who retired as Principal on 30.06.2012, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled. Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 6/27/2023 11:23:55 AM

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 stood

retired on 30th June, 2012, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2012.

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 o f 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, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 6/27/2023 11:23:55 AM

increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2012 and recalculate 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: 6/27/2023 11:23:55 AM