Sagarmal Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 18554 MP

                             1
 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                ON THE 3 rd OF NOVEMBER, 2023
                WRIT PETITION No. 28015 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
1.    SAGARMAL JAIN S/O LATE SHRI HARLAL JAIN,
      AGED    ABOUT    64   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      SEVANIVRAT SHIKSHAK R.O 308 PHASE-1
      ARIHANT VIHAR COLONY VIDISHA M P (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    AMAAN SINGH AHIRWAR S/O LATE SHRI
      DHANNALAL, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O NAI
      BASTI RAVIDAS COLONY WARD NO. 3 GANJ
      BASODA DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    NEMICHAND    JAIN  S/O  LATE    SHRI
      SHUSHALCHAND, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
      NANAJI WALI GALI WARD NO.3 HANUMAN
      MANDIR ROAD GANJBASODA DIST. VIDISHA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                  .....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI K.K.TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

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

2.    THE STATE OF MP THROUGH PRAMUKH SACHIV
      VITT VIBHAG VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    ZILA SHIKSHA ADHIKARI, DISTRICT VIDISHA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    ZILA PENSION ADHIKARI, D ISTR ICT VIDISHA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    ZILA KOSHLAY ADHIKARI, DISTRICT VIDISHA
                                     2
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA DIXIT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

1 . The instant petition has been preferred by petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 who retired on 30.06.2021, 30.06.2021 and 30.06.2019 respectively, were denied increment on the pretext that they are not entitled.

2 . Learned counsel for petitioners submit 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. Petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 stood retired on 30.06.2021, 30.06.2021 and 30.06.2019 respectively, therefore, they are entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2021, 01.07.2021 and 01.07.2020. The said aspect has also been dealt with by the Full Bench of this Court also in the case of Ratanlal Rathore Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Writ Petition No.4118 of

2020) decided on 28.07.2023.

3. 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.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

5. 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 as well as Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ratanlal Rathore (supra) 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.

6 . Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2021, 01.07.2021 and 01.07.2020 for petitioners no.1, 2 and 3 respectively and recalculate the benefit of retiral

dues and pension etc. and issue fresh pension payment order in favour of the petitioners, if not already issued, that too within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.

7. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Ashish*

ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH CHAURASIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA

CHAUR PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=bf81a9adb1da24e4bc7b5195154c3d4de0 8c6bb9303e52e2e7e728d9bac85bd3, pseudonym=CA2EA6EDDF504F8F9C2790FA9A0FD 201D0242B64, serialNumber=A926F3CBF979ECA6A4C477577EED

ASIA BA3AB4F94593A930B98DAE1B0AD16F90B5FD, cn=ASHISH CHAURASIA Date: 2023.11.03 18:12:49 -07'00'