Rupchand Ransore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 6314 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rupchand Ransore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2024

Author: Pranay Verma

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                                              1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                                 ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2024
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 4780 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RUPCHAND RANSORE S/O GANPATJI, AGED ABOUT 69
                           YEARS, OCCUPATION: PENSIONER R/O: 314, HARIJAN
                           MOHALLA, PADLIYA KHURD, MAHESHWAR, DISTRICT
                           KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI NILESH MANORE - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
                                 SECRETARY WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
                                 VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LIGHT MACHINERY AND
                                 ELECTRICAL    MECHANICS DIVISION DHAR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DISTRICT PENSION
                                 OFFICE DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    DISTRICT    TREASURY    OFFICER DISTRICT
                                 TREASURY, DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI A.S. PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the inaction on the part of the respondents in not granting the annual increment which fell due on 01.07.2015 to the petitioner, whereas the

petitioner has completed service of required period in preceding year from the date of last increment and retired on 30.06.2015 despite of various orders of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts.

02. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance in the matter of Dr. Rameshwar Prasad Gupta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in W.P. No. 12902/2023 dated 15.06.2023 submitted that the controversy has been put to rest by this Court, wherein reliance was placed in the matter of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., passed in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 dated 11.04.2023 whereby after considering the judgments of different High Courts

including this 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 was further submitted that as the controversy is now no longer res integra and the present petitioner has stood retired on 30.06.2015, therefore, he is entitled for availing the benefit of annual increment which would be added on 01.07.2015.

03. Learned counsel for the State submits that the controversy though appears to be put to rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court that earlier due to difference of opinion between the two Benches of this Court the subject matter wa s referred to a large Bench which is still pending, thus, he prays for deferment of the matter till the decision of the larger Bench.

04. After hearing counsels for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the said controversy has already been put to rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court which has been elucidated by this Court in the matter of Dr. Rameshwar Prasad Gupta vs. State of M.P. (supra).

05. Resultantly, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of

annual increment which will fell due on first day of July of the year of his retirement and the respondent is, therefore, directed to grant the benefit of annual increment and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension of the petitioner and issue fresh pension payment order in favour of the petitioner, if found entitled.

06. Let this exercise be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

07. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off. E-copy/certified copy as per rules/directions.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE Shilpa