Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamalkant Joshi vs M.P.P.K.V.V.Co. Ltd on 8 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 24863 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
KAMALKANT JOSHI S/O SHRI RAMKRISHAN JOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED AS
O.A.GRADE III R/O NEAR PANNA NAKA CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. M.P.P.K.V.V.CO. LTD THR. C.M.D. SHAKTI NAGAR
RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHIEF ENGINEER MPPKVV CO LTD(SR) CIRCLE-
SAGAR , DISTT-SAGAR(MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER MPPKVV CO LTD
DISTT-CHHATARPUR(MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MPPKVV CO LTD CIRCLE-
PANNA DISTT-PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The issue in the present petition is with regard to entitlement of annual
increment to the employee on the event of retirement.
This issue has been earlier considered in the case of T h e Director
(Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others
(Civil Appeal No.4349/2023), reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 401
wherein the Supreme Court has held thus :-
"21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant
one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day
of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of
retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement
with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the
circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs."
The same has been relied upon in the case of Madhya Pradesh Power
Transmission Com. Ltd. and another vs. S.R. Ramchandran and others
(SLP (C) No.8219/2020) and the Supreme Court has held thus :-
"Mr. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf
o f the appellant's seeks to distinguish this authority by pointing out that
Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service
Regulations, 1997 is different from Rule 10 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules,2008 as
also Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh (Pay Revision) Rules, 2009 and Rule 10 of
Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules,2008.
We have gone through these rules and in our opinion, though these
Rules are differently phrased, they have the same import, on the strength of
which the Co-ordinate Bench had dismissed the petition of the employer. In
these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders assailed in
this set of petitions and these petitions shall stand dismissed."
Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgments passed by the
Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra ) and S.R.
Ramchandran (supra), this petition is allowed, directing the respondents to
grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added with effect from
01.07.2021 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue
fresh PPO in favour of the petitioner who was retired on 30/06/2021 within a
period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
MTK
