Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smt. Santosh Namdeo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3131 MP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 3131 MP
Judgement Date : 2 February, 2024

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Santosh Namdeo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 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 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 2303 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SMT. SANTOSH NAMDEO W/O SHRI DILIP KUMAR
                           NAMDEO, AGED 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
                           GOVT. SERVANT R/O OPPOSITE JAIN MANDIR DURGA
                           COLONY GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI AKSHAT JAIN- ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                                 REVENUE, BALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    CHIEF REVENUE COMMISSIONER ARERA HILLS
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    COLLECTOR GUNA COLLECTORATE GUNA DISTT
                                 GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER              GUNA DISTT
                                 GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI N.S. TOMAR- ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              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

30.06.2022, 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 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 petitioner stood retired on 30th June, 2022, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2022. 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 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. Heard the 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 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.

6 . Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2022 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension etc. and issue fresh pension payment order 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.

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

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Vishal

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter