Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Devendra Kumar Hada on 24 November, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 24 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 2079 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF PENSION, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS
DEPARTM ENT UJJAIN DIVISION, BHARATPURI,
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
( SHRI SHREY RAJ SAXENA, DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR TEH
RESPONDENT/STATE)
AND
DEVENDRA KUMAR HADA S/O SHRI SUKH DEV
PRASAD HADA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED ACCOUNT OFFICER 59, SHRIMALIVAS,
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( NONE PRESENT FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 11/25/2023
2:59:44 PM
2
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
Also heard on I.A.No. 8642/2023, application for condonation of
delay. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of
47 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. stands closed.
2. The present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nayapith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed
being aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.
13042/2023 (Annexure A/1) in the light of judgment passed in the case of The
Director (Admin and HR) KPTCL & Others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani &
Others [Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023] decided on 11.04.2023 whereby
learned Single Judge while allowing the petition has given direction to grant one
annual increment which the respondent earned on the last day of his service for
rendering his services in the preceding year from the date of retirement with
good behaviour and efficiency.
3. Learned writ Court directed to grant the benefit of one annual
increment to the respondent which fell due on 01.07.2012 and also to revise his
retiral dues within a stipulated time.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/State argued that petition has been
decided without there being reply on behalf of the State. It is further submitted
that respondent's date of birth is 03.06.1952 and as such on attaining the age of
60 years, he got superannuated on 30.06.2012. Its not the case of the
respondent that his date of birth is 1st July. Therefore, he is not held eligible for
grant of one annual increment which has fallen due on the 1st July,2012 as
respondent got superannuated prior to the said date i.e. on 30.06.2012 and only
in the event of continuation in service of an employee on 1st day of July of an
year, the employee becomes eligible for grant of annual increment. Even
otherwise, the respondent got superannuated on 30.06.2012 and he has filed the
writ petition after expiry of almost 11 years. Thus, on the ground of delay and
laches, the petition is barred by limitation. Learned Single Judge without
considering all these relevant aspects has allowed the writ petition. Hence, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. This Court, in the case of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Vs. State of
M.P passed in W.P. No. 18030/2019 decided on 03.12.2019 has already
dealt with the same controversy which was challenged by the State in W.A.
No. 363/2020 and the same was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court
vide order dated 06.03.2020.
6. It is not in dispute that the respondent has not been extended the
benefit of grant of one annual increment falling due on 1st July, 2012 after his
superannuation. Even otherwise, the issue involved herein is no more res
integra in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of The
Director (Admin and HR) KPTCL & Others(supra)
7. In view of the above, we do not find any good ground to interfere with
the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge
has not committed any error so as to interfere with the order impugned.
Accordingly, this writ petition, being without any merit and substance, is hereby
dismissed.
8. Despite the above settled legal position, instant writ appeal has been
filed wasting the precious time of this Court which could be utilized in deciding
more pressing matters, therefore, it would be apt to impose cost on the OIC.
9. Accordingly, OIC is directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only). The cost of Rs. 10,000/- shall be deposited in
the account of President and Secretary H.C. Employees Union H.C.
(Account No.63006406008, Branch Code No. 30528, IFSC No.
SBIN0030528, CIF No. 73003108919) within a period of 30 days from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order and thereafter compliance report
be filed before the Registry, failing which, the Registry shall list the the matter
as PUD qua cost. The cost of Rs. 10,000/- shall be deposited by the OIC from
his own pocket and not to be borne by the State Government.
10. No order as to cost.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
sh
