Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Bharti Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 November, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 24 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 28743 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
DR. BHARTI SHARMA W/O LATE SHRI RAJEEV
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED GOVT. PROFESSOR R/O A-613 SPACE PARK
PHASE 1 INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NAMIT GOSWAMI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT
VALLBH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
ED UCATION 5TH FLOOR, VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KOUSTUBH PATHAK, P.L./G.A.)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that although he stood
retired on 30.06.2021 and the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July
of that year, but he was not granted the said benefit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in
the present case has already been settled by the Supreme Court recently in
Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 (The Director {Admn. and HR KPTCL and
Ors Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors) wherein it has been held that benefit of
annual increment which was to be added on 1st of July every year shall be paid
to the employee who got retired on 30th of June of the said year, therefore the
present petitioner is also entitled to get the said benefit.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner has approached this Court belatedly inasmuch as, accordingly to the
petitioner's own showing he was superannuated way back on 30.06.2021.
4 . Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties, firstly the benefits to the petitioner cannot be declined inasmuch as, the
extension of benefit of increments is recurring cause of action having direct
nexus with the pecuniary benefits for which, the petitioner is entitled. [Please
See: M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India (1995 5 SCC 628)]
5. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passed
by the Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), this petition is
allowed, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of annual increment
which was to be added with effect from 01.07.2021 and recalculate the benefit
of retiral dues and pension and issue fresh PPO in favour of the petitioner
within a period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this order.
6. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Bahar
