Narendra Kumar Dixit vs Madhya Pradesh Power ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 15535 MP

                                            1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                                       BEFORE
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                        ON THE 21st OF SEPTEMBER, 2020

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 18158 of 2020

       BETWEEN:-

       NARENDRA KUMAR DIXIT S/O SHRI MUKUT
       BIHARI DIXIT, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
       OCCUPATION: PENSIONER SHARDA SADAN AZAD
       NAGAR MORAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                    .....PETITIONER

       (BY SHRI S.K.S. JADON - ADVOCATE)

       AND

1.     MADHYA PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION
       COMPNAY LTD BLOCK NO. 4 SHAKTI BHAWAN
       VIDYUT NAGAR, RAMPUR JABALPUR THROUGH
       ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.     SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (TESTING AND
       COMMUNICATION) MADHYA PRADESH POWER
       TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD, ROSHNIGHAR
       GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS

       (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
                                       ORDER

1. Heard on I.A.No.8430/2023 for amendment in the cause title.

2. Petitioner intends to incorporated the word "Testing" in place of

Inspection in the particulars of respondent No.2. He also intends to incorporate "Roshnighar" in the address of respondent No.2.

3. On due consideration, application is allowed. Necessary amendment be carried out across the Board.

4. After amendment being carried out, matter is heard on admission.

5. 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 Class -III on 30-06-2017, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.

6. 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, 2017, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2017.

7. 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.

8. Heard.

9. 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.

10. Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2017 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.

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

                                                              (ANAND PATHAK)
Anil*                                                             JUDGE

ANIL          Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA
              DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA



KUMAR
              PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT
              OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,

postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068b51da e27e84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc7df50f,

CHAURASI pseudonym=F7E569EA2A8955818DF870B0C 50764B46C526E80, serialNumber=EC534CBB3B245F050119F06F 4A296DD83C765A1E2ACC6EC7D8BD8CBCC9

YA C2446E, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Date: 2023.09.22 11:01:56 +05'30'