Ghanshyam Bobde vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 6647 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ghanshyam Bobde vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 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 5 th OF MARCH, 2024
                                          WRIT PETITION No. 5654 of 2024

                         BETWEEN:-
                         GHANSHYAM BOBDE S/O LATE SHRI NEELKANTH RAO
                         BOBDE, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                         PENSION RETIRED OFFICE SAHAYAK GRADE 1
                         KARYALAY UP MAHAPRABANDHAK MP MADHY
                         KSHETR VIDHUT VITARAN COMPANY LIMITED DABRA
                         DISTRICT     GWALIOR       MP      ANTARGAT
                         MAHAPRABANDHAK SANCHAAN AND SANDHARAN
                         ROSHANIGHAR JAYENDRAGANJ LASHKAR GWALIOR
                         MP NEELKANTH SADAN MADHOGANJ THANE KE
                         SAMNE LASHKAR GWALIOR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                             .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI NEERAJ SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

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

                         2.    MUKHYA PRABANDHAK M.P.M.K.V.V.CO. LTD.
                               MOTIJHEEL GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    M AHAPR AB AN D HAK M.P.M.K.V.V.   CO. LTD.
                               ROSHNIGHAR      JAYENDRAGANJ        LASHKAR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    UP MAHAPRABANDHAK M.P.M.K.V.V. CO. LTD.
                               DABRA GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         5.    ACCOUNT OFFICER M.P. POWER TRANSMISION
                               CO. LTD. SHAKTI BHAWAN JABALPUR (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         6.    MUKHYA       MAHAPRABANDHAK       MANAV
                               SANSADHAN (HR) M.P POWER TRANSMISSION
                               CO. LTD. SHAKTI BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 3/5/2024
3:57:16 PM
                                                              2
                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI G.K. AGARWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                               Th is petition coming on for hearing 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. Petitioner, who retired on 30.06.2017, 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, 2017, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2017. 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, the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2017 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. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

8. Certified copy as per Rules.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu