Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sita Mandavi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2024

Author: Subodh Abhyankar

Bench: Subodh Abhyankar

                                                          1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT INDORE
                                                   BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
                                                ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2024
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 11689 of 2024

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    SITA MANDAVI W/O RADHESHYAM MANDAVI,
                                AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
                                DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HOUSE NO. 06, MAIN
                                ROAD MARTHOMA SCHOOL, NYAY NAGAR,
                                SUKHLIYA,  DISTRICT    INDORE   (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    SHANTILAL MANDLOI S/O RAM            KARAN
                                MANDLOI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                RETIRED ASSISTANT GRADE II 34/A, BRAJ VIHAR
                                MAIN, NEAR VAISHALI NAGAR, SECTOR A,
                                SUDAMA NAGAR DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    HARISH PAWAR S/O MARTAND RAO PAWAR,
                                AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
                                ASSISTANT GRADE II MAKAAN NO. 25/2, GALI NO.
                                2, MOTITABELA, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....PETITIONERS
                          (BY SHRI YASH NAGAR - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
                                SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
                                DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    C O M M I S S I O N E R DEPARTMENT OF
                                COMMERCIAL TAX INDORE MOTI BUNGALOW,
                                INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    DIVISIONAL  JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY,
                                ACCOUNTS AND PENSION DIVISION INDORE
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    DIVISIONAL      PENSION       OFFICER DIVISION
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 5/1/2024
5:14:07 PM
                                                      2
                                INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    DISTRICT    TREASURY    OFFICER SHAJAPUR
                                DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          6.    DISTRICT    PENSION     OFFICER DISTRICT
                                SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT - G.A.)

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

By the instant petition, the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are claiming that although they stood retired on 30.06.2016, 30.06.2016 and 30.06.2015 respectively and

the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of that year, but they were not granted the said benefit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the present case has already been settled by the Supreme Court recently in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 (The Director {Admn. and HR KPTCL and Ors Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors) wherein it has been held that benefit of

annual increment which was to be added on 1st of July every year shall be paid

to the employee who got retired on 30th of June of the said year, therefore the present petitioners are also entitled to get the said benefit.

3. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), this petition is allowed, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added with effect from 01.07.2016, 01.07.2016 and 01.07.2015 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue fresh PPO in favour of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of

submitting copy of this order.

4. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Bahar