Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Sundar Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2024
1 WP-19877-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 19877 of 2024
RAM SUNDAR SHUKLA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Neeraj Singh Chauhan - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri B.D. Singh - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Sanjeev Sachdeva, Acting Chief Justice
Petitioners claim that they have stood superannuated from service on their respective
dates of superannuation i.e. on 30.06.2011 (petitioner No.1), 30.06.2014 (petitioner
No.2) & 30.06.2022 (petitioner No.3) and therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of
annual increment which became due to them on their respective dates of annual
increment i.e. on 01.07.2011 (petitioner No.1), 01.07.2014 (petitioner No.2) and
01.07.2022 (petitioner No.3). Reference may be had to judgment of the Supreme Court
i n Director (ADMN) and HR KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani , 2023 SCC OnLine SC
401, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the entitlement to receive increment
crystallises when the Government servant completes a requisite length of service with
good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day. The Supreme Court further
held that annual increment earned on the last day of service for rendering good service
preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiency was
liable to be paid to the employee.
2. Reference may also be had to Circular dated 15.03.2024 issued by the Finance
Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh directing all departments to grant annual
increment to all the employees who have retired on 30th June / 31st December with
regard to annual increment that became payable on 1st July or 1st January, as the case
may be.
2 WP-19877-2024
3. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that there are thousands of employees
who are covered by the Circular and said Circular is being implemented and the cases
are being scrutinized and processed accordingly.
4. Be that as it may, since petitioners superannuated from service on 30.06.2011
(petitioner No.1), 30.06.2014 (petitioner No.2) & 30.06.2022 (petitioner No.3), they
are entitled to get the annual increment on the succeeding day of their retirement i.e. on
01.07.2011 (petitioner No.1), 01.07.2014 (petitioner No.2) and 01.07.2022 (petitioner
No.3) along with interest @ 7% per annum. However, so far as petitioner No.1 and 2
are concerned, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rushibhai
Jagdishchandra Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, 2022 SCC online SC
641 , since there is a delay in approaching the Court, we restrict the benefit of arrears to
them only to a period of three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition.
5. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to grant the annual increment to the
petitioners which became payable to them on 01.07.2011 (petitioner No.1), 01.07.2014
(petitioner No.2) and 01.07.2022 (petitioner No.3), with all consequential benefits.
Further, it is directed that the amount accrued in favour of the petitioners on account of
annual increment be paid to them within a period of six weeks.
6. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
YS
