Balak Das vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17747 MP

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT GWALIOR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                             ON THE 25 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 27376 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           BALAK DAS S/O LATE SHRI HARVILASH UDAY, AGED 63
                           YE A R S , OCCUPATION: RETIRED ASSISTANT SUB
                           INSPECTOR R/O C 25 TRIMURTI NAGAR, GIRD,
                           GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI DEVESH SHARMA- ADVOCATE)

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

                           2.    DIRECTOR  GENERAL    OF  POLICE, POLICE
                                 HEADQUARTERS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    ADDITIONAL DIRERCTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
                                 POLICE   HEADQUARTERS BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           4.    ZONAL POLICE SUPERINTENDENT (SPECIAL
                                 B R A N C H ) AAMKHO GWALIOR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           5.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICE, GWALIOR THROUGH
                                 PENSION OFFICE, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI MAN SINGH JADON- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
                           RESPONDENT/STATE)

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

Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 25-10-2023 06:50:44 PM

1. The instant petition has been preferred by petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. Petitioner, who retired on 30.06.2023, 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, 2023, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2023. 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.

Signature Not Verified

5. After going through the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 25-10-2023 06:50:44 PM

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. 01.07.2023 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. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Vishal

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 25-10-2023 06:50:44 PM