Madhya Pradesh High Court

Radheshyam Goyal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 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 2 nd OF MAY, 2024
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 11692 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RADHESHYAM GOYAL S/O SHRI SITARAM JI GOYAL,
                           AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
                           GOVERNMENT SERVANT 175 USHA NAGAR EXTENSION
                           INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRINCIPAL  SECRETARY    PUBLIC HEALTH
                                 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    ENGINEER   IN   CHIEF,  PUBLIC  HEALTH
                                 ENGINEERING         DEPARTMENT SATPURA
                                 BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER DISTRICT INDORE
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY MS. HARSHLATA SONI, G.A.)

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

B y the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that although the petitioner stood retired on 30/06/2010 and the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of that year, but the petitioner 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 01/07/2010 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.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE krjoshi