Prayagnarayan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17259 MP

                                                              1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                     BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                               ON THE 16 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 22455 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           PRAYAGNARAYAN     SHARMA   S/O  LATE  SHRI
                           BHAIROPRASAD SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: RETIRED EMPLOYEE RANJANA NAGAR
                           WARD NO 24 BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI RAVI GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

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

                           2.    THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE POLICE
                                 HEADQUARTERS BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    DIST. TREASURY         OFFICER BHIND       (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI SOHIT MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

1. 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 30.06.2014, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.

2 . Learned counsel for petitioner submits that whether a government Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 10/17/2023 6:23:36 PM

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, 2014, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual

increment which was to be added on 01.07.2014.

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 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.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 10/17/2023 6:23:36 PM

6 . Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2014 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 neetu

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 10/17/2023 6:23:36 PM