Shri Krishna Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 6241 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shri Krishna Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 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 29 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                     WRIT PETITION No. 5111 of 2024

BETWEEN:-
SHRI KRISHNA SHARMA S/O SHRI BAL MUKUND
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PENSIONER RETIRED LECTURER RANI KA TAL ATER
ROAD BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
      SCHOOL EDUCATION M.P. BHOPAL (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DISTRICT BHIND
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR - AAG)

      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 30.06.2011 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

30.06.2011, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2011. 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 Additional Advocate General 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. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that petitioner in the present case retired on 30.06.2011 and at such belated stage he has filed this petition, therefore, he cannot be given benefit of interest in any manner.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

6. 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.

7. Since, petitioner retired in the year 2011 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.

8. 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.

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

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Van

VANDANA VERMA 2024.02.29 12:50:52 +05'30'