Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tribhuwan Bhaskar Bhargava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 WP-22897-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 22897 of 2024
TRIBHUWAN BHASKAR BHARGAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.S. Rajawat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
1. 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 31.12.2013 , 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 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 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 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.
3 . Learned counsel for respondent/State has no objection to the prayer so made by
2 WP-22897-2024
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 2013 and is claiming his 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 petitioner shall be entitled to arrears with interest only for three years prior to the
date of filing of the Writ 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.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Van
