Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambabu Singh Raghuwanshi 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. 8083 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. RAMBABU SINGH RAGHUWANSHI S/O SHRI
OMPRAKASH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O NEAR SHIVJI
MANDIR NEW CITY COLONY DISTRICT GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GHANSHYAM TIWARI S/O SHRI D.D. TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
DHAKAD COLONY GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JAGANNATH SINGH KOLI S/O SHRI GANESH
RAM, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED VIVEK COLONY MATAPURA CANT
GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SHIVENDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
SCHOOL EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION MADHYA
PRADESH SATPUDA BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI M.S.JADON - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 04-04-2024
06:59:06 PM
2
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 retired
on 30.06.2023, petitioner No.2 on 30.06.2022 and petitioner No.3 on
30.06.2020 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 petitioners retired on
30.06.2023, 30.06.2022 and 30.06.2020 respectively, therefore, they are entitled
to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2023,
01.07.2022 and 01.07.2020 respectively. 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 Government Advocate 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 Government Advocate further submits that petitioner in the
present case retired much prior and at such belated stage they have filed this
petition, therefore, they cannot be given benefit of interest in any manner.
5 . Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 referred the service
records of petitioners and submitted that increment due to all the petitioners was
always on 1st July of the particular year. Although, they have retired much
before and approached this Court belatedly. Therefore, interest part be waived
or decided in accordance with law.
6. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
7. 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 petitioners have made out
their case.
8 . Since, petitioners retired long back 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 (if in
the present case it applies).
9. 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.
10. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Vishal
