Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sitaram Devle vs State Of M.P. on 2 May, 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 2 nd OF MAY, 2024
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 11837 of 2024

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SITARAM DEVLE S/O VITTAL DEVLE, AGED ABOUT 71
                         YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED 147, KALINDI KUNJ,
                         KHARGONE     DISTRICT   KHARGONE      (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

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

                         AND
                         1.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
                               SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
                               BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF TREASURY
                               AND ACCOUNTS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    DISTRICT    PENSION   OFFICER KHARGONE,
                               DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    DISTRICT  TREASURY  OFFICER  DISTRICT
                               TR EASURY KHARGONE DISTRICT KHARGONE
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - P.L. FOR STATE)

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

1. By the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that although he stood retired on 31.12.2012 and the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of that year, but he was not granted the said benefit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 KPTCK 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 petitioner is also entitled to get the said benefit.

3. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamni (Supra), this petition is allowed, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of annual increment

which was to be added with effect from 01.07.2012 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue fresh PPO in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this Court.

4. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE SS/-