Shivaji Rao Bhonsle vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 21477 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shivaji Rao Bhonsle vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2024

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                                              1                           WP-22196-2024
                              IN       THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT GWALIOR
                                                         BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                   ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 22196 of 2024
                                                  SHIVAJI RAO BHONSLE
                                                          Versus
                                       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Bhanu Prakash Singh, learned counsel for petitioner.

                                   Shri   Deepak     Khot,     learned    Government      Advocate     for
                           respondent/State.

                                                               ORDER

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioner, who retired on 31.12.2010, 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 of June/31st of December of a year is entitled to avail the benefit of increment as fixed on 1st of July/31st of December 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

2 WP-22196-2024 held that benefit of annual increment which is to be added on 1st of July or 1st January 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 31.12.2010, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.01.2011.

3. Learned counsel for respondent/State has no objection to the prayer so made by counsel for the petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

5. 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/31st December 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.

6. Since, petitioner retired in the year 2010 and is claiming long standing 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

3 WP-22196-2024 Petition.

7. 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.

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

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE

ojha