Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durga Charan Morya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 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 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2983 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
DURGA CHARAN MORYA S/O RAMBHAROSE MORYA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AS A RETIRED
LECTURER HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL DABOH
DISTRICT BHIND WARD NO 8 SHASTRI NAGAR DABOH
TEHSIL LAHAR DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI R.P.SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION GAUTAM
NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. TREASURY DEPARTMENT THROUGH DIVISIONAL
JOINT DIRECTOR, TREASURY, ACCOUNT &
PENSION, GWALIOR CHAMBAL MOTIMAHAL,
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER/PRESCRIBED
OFFICER PENSION DISTRICT PENSION OFFICE
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA DIXIT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 07-02-2024
06:43:17 PM
2
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 retired on 30.06.2020 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 retired on
30.06.2020, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment
which was to be added on 01.07.2020. 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. Since, petitioner retired in the year 2020 and is claiming long 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 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 judgement 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
Ashish*
