Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 21224 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak

                                                              1                                 WP-20838-2024
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                       BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                                 ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2024
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 20838 of 2024
                                          RAJENDRA PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA
                                                     Versus
                                    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                            Shri Neeraj Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                            Shri N.K.Gupta, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.

                                                               ORDER

1. 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. Petitioner, who retired on 31.12.2013, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that whether a government employee retiring on 30th June/31th January of a year is entitled to avail the benefit of increment as fixed on 1st of July/January 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/January every year shall be paid to the employee who is going to be retired on 30th June/31st December of the said year. It is further submitted that controversy is now no longer res integra. The present petitioner stood retired on 31.12.2013, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.01.2014. 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 counsel for the petitioner further submits that earlier an SLP (Civil) No.8119/2020 was preferred by the respondents challenging the orders passed in W.P.No.298/2020 and W.A.No.319/2020 but the same has been dismissed on 11- 07- 2023.

2 WP-20838-2024

4. 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.

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, petitioner retired in the year 2013 and is claiming his outstanding claim, therefore, as per the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, AIR Online 2022 SC 735 , it is clarified that petitioner 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).

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 judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rushibhai (supra) and issue fresh pension payment orders 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.

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

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE

Ashish*