Brajendra Singh Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15159 MP

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT GWALIOR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                            ON THE 13 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 22726 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           BRAJENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN S/O LATE SHRI BABU
                           SINGH CHAUHAN, AGED 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           SENIOR AUDITOR R/O 67/467 SHIVAJI NAGAR,
                           GADAIPURA, BIRLA NAGAR, GADAIPURA, BIRLA
                           NAGAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI SARTAJ SINGH TOMAR- ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
                                 SECRETARY VALLABH , FINANCE DEPARTMENT
                                 GOVERNT OF M.P., MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
                                 BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    THE DIRECTOR LOCAL FUND AUDIT GWALIOR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRCTOR LOCAL FUND
                                 AUDIT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    ASSISTANT  DIRECTOR LOCAL FUND           AUDIT
                                 GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    DISTRICT PENSION   OFFICER            DISTRICT
                                 GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI SIRAJ QURESHI- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
                           RESPONDENT/STATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                            ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 13-09-2023 07:39:56 PM

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 The petitioner, who retired as Senior Auditor on 30.06.2016, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.

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 stands retired on 30th June, 2016, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2016.

Learned counsel for respondent/State could not dispute the passing of s aid 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.

Heard.

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.

Signature Not Verified State of Madhya Pradesh has been considered in favour of employee who is Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 13-09-2023 07:39:56 PM

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.

Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2016 and re-calculate 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.

Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Vishal

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 13-09-2023 07:39:56 PM