Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudama Prasad Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2981 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. SUDAMA PRASAD VERMA S/O LATE SHRI
BHAGIRATH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED AS UPPER DIVISION
TEACHER GOVT MIDDLE SCHOOL BADOKHARI
TEH SEONDHA DISTRICT DATIA MP WARD NO 4
DABOH DISTRICT BHIND MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MAHENDRA SINGH KUSHWAH S/O SHRI
BHAGIRATH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED AS HEAD MASTER GOVT
PRIMARY SCHOOL TEDA SANKUL BHAGUAPURA,
TEHSIL SEONDHA, DISTRICT DATIA R/O VILLAGE
POST BARTHARA, TEHSIL LAHAR, BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT MEERA GUPTA W/O LATE SHRI BHARAT
SHARAN GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SHRI BHARAT SHARAN GUPTA
RETIRED AS ASSISTANT TEACHER FROM GOVT
RPIMARY SCHOOL PACHOKHRA SANKUL GOVT
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL UPRAY
TEHSIL/DISTRICT DATIA) R/O NAYA BAZAR,
NEAR KALKA MANDIR, GIRD, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI R.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION GAUTAM
NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DATIA (MADHYA
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 08-02-2024
10:04:20 AM
2
PRADESH)
4. DIVISIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF
TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS CHAMBAL DIVISION,
MOTIMAHAL, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER/PRESCRIBED
OFFICER PENSION DISTRICT PENSION OFFICE
DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER DATIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI P.S. RAGHUVANSHI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
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. Petitioners No.1 and 2, who retired on
30.06.2023, 30.06.2020 and petitioner No.3/wife of Late Bharat Sharan who
retired on 30.06.2022 were denied increment on the pretext that they are not
entitled.
2 . Learned counsel for petitioners 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. Petitioners No.1 & 2 stood
retired on 30.06.2023 & 30.06.2020 and petitioner No.3/wife of Late Bharat
Sharan who stood retired on 30.06.2022, therefore, they are entitled to avail the
benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2023, 01.07.2020
and 01.07.2022 respectively. 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. 01.07.2023, 01.07.2020 & 01.07.2022
and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension etc. and issue fresh
pension payment order in favour of the petitioners, if not already issued, that
too within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified
copy of this order.
7. The petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
