Laxmi Narayan Chiksaniya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 6171 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Laxmi Narayan Chiksaniya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 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 29 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 5114 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           LAXMI NARAYAN CHIKSANIYA S/O SHRI ANNA RAM,
                           AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PENSIONER
                           RETIRED RAEO BEHIND GAYATRI TEMPLE GAYATRI
                           COLONY WARD NO. 5, PLACE AND TEHSIL KUMBHRAJ
                           DISTRICT GUNA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI B.S. RAJPUT - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
                                 SECRETARY GOVT. OF M.P. VALLABH BHAWAN,
                                 BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    THE DIRECTOR OF FARMER WELFARE AND
                                 AGRICULTURE        DEVELOPMENT MADHYA
                                 PRADESH, VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN, 2ND FLOOR
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    SUB-DIVISIONAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER, SUB
                                 DIVISION     RAGHOGARH, DISTRICT   GUNA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY 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 under Article 226/227 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

30.06.2015, 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, 2015, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2015.

3. Learned counsel for respondent/State could not dispute the passing of said order. However, he fairly submits that SLP arising out of judgment of Division Bench of this Court is still pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

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 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. Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2015 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 . Accordingly, petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn*