Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gyannath Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh 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. 11127 of 2024

                         BETWEEN:-
                         GYANNATH PANDEY S/O SHRI BALIRAM PANDEY,
                         AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED FROM
                         COLLECTORATE, R/O. 114, SWASTIK NAGAR, INDORE
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI SUDHANSHU VYAS - ADVOCATE)

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

                         2.    CHIEF REVENUE COMMISSIONER 1ST FLOOR,
                               ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    THE     COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE              OFFICE
                               INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER COLLECTORATE
                               OFFICE INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         5.    DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICE DISTRICT INDORE
                               (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 30.06.2006 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 01.07.2006 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/-