Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sitaram Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2024

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                                           1
                          IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                                ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2024
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 11745 of 2024

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SITARAM SHARMA S/O GOVINDRAM SHARMA, AGED:
                         70    YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED, ADDRESS:
                         JAWAHAR GANJ, LANE NO.06, SENDHWA, DISTRICT
                         BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE.)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
                               PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE
                               DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL AFFAIRS
                               DEPARTM ENT, DISTRICT BARWANI (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

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

                         4.    DISTRICT  TREASURY OFFICER,              DISTRICT
                               BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI KUSHAL GOYAL - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL APPEARING
                         ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL.)

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

By the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that although he / she

stood retired on 30.06.2015 and the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of that year, but he / she 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 on 11 th April, 2023 by the Supreme Court recently in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No.6185 of 2020) [The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCK and Ors. v. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.] reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 296, 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 01.07.2015 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue fresh Pension Payment Order (PPO) in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this Court's order.

4. Since there is delay in approaching the Court, thus petitioner shall not be entitled for entire arrears / interest, however, the same shall be payable to him / her from the last three years as well as due annual increment only. PPO be accordingly revised.

5. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands allowed.

Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed off.

(VIVEK RUSIA)

JUDGE rcp