Ghasiram Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16691 MP

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                              ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 25781 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           GHASIRAM BAGHEL S/O SHRI KHUSILAL BAGHEL,
                           AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED,
                           RESIDENT OF C-215, MUKHERJINAGAR, DISTRICT
                           VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI R.S. GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

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

                           2.    DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, STATE OF
                                 M . P . , GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,            DISTRICT
                                 VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, DISTRICT VIDISHA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    AHARAN   SANVITARAN           ADHIKARI   BLOCK
                                 SHIKSHA    ADHIKARI,           DISTRICT VIDISHA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
                           STATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
Signature Not Verified
                                                            ORDER

Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 09-10-2023 06:46:45 PM

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioner, who retired on 30.06.2022, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.

2 . 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, 2022, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2022.

3. Learned counsel for respondent/State could not dispute the passing of said order. However, he fairly submits that SLP arising out of judgment of Division Bench of this Court is still pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 09-10-2023 06:46:45 PM

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.

6 . Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2022 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.

7 . Accordingly, petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn*

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 09-10-2023 06:46:45 PM