Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pahad Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 3 rd OF APRIL, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 8075 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. PAHAD SINGH YADAV S/O SHRI LAXMAN SINGH
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED R/O WARD NO 6 MUNGAWALI DISTRICT
ASHOKNAGAR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MAHESH KUMAR SINGH RAGHUWANSHI S/O
SHRI NARAYAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O GANESH COLONY,
VIDISHA ROAD, ASHOKNAGAR DIST.
ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAM PRASAD YADAV S/O BHAIRO SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O
YADAV COLONY ASHOKNAGAR DIST.
ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. LATOOR CHAND RAGHUWANSHI S/O HINDU
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED R/O VIVEK COLONY GUNA PUBLIC
SCHOOL GUNA DIST. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHIVENDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
SCHOOL EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION MADHYA
P R A D E S H SATPURDA BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DISTRICT
ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 03-04-2024
07:17:54 PM
2
4. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DISTRICT
A S H O K N A G A R ASHOKNAGAR, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NILESH SINGH TOMAR- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. The instant petition has been preferred by petitioners, under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the
respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. Petitioner No.1 and 2
retired on 30.06.2013, petitioner No.3 retired on 30.06.2015 and petitioner No.4
retired on 30.06.2016 were denied increment on the pretext that they are 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 No.1 and
2 retired on 30.06.2013, petitioner No.3 retired on 30.06.2015 and petitioner
No.4 retired on 30.06.2016, therefore, they are entitled to avail the benefit of
annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2013, 01.07.2015 and
01.07.2016. 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 Additional Advocate General 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. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that petitioners
in the present case retired on, 30.06.2013, 30.06.2015 and on 30.06.2016 and at
such belated stage they have filed this petition, therefore, they cannot be given
benefit of interest in any manner.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
6. 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 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.
7 . Since, petitioners retired in the year 2013, 2015 and 2016 and are
claiming long standing claim, therefore, as per the judgement of Apex Court in
the case of Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal
Corporation, AIR Online 2022 SC 735, it is clarified that petitioners shall be
entitled to arrears with interest only for three years prior to the date of filing of
the Writ Petition.
8. Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual
increment, recalculate the benefit of retiral dues, pension and arrears etc. as per
the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Rushibhai (supra) and issue fresh
pension payment orders in favour of the petitioners, if not already issued, that
too within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified
copy of this order.
9. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Vishal
