Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ashok Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 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 6 th OF MAY, 2024
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 11864 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    ASHOK KUMAR S/O SHRI TEJMAL JAIN, AGED
                                 ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED E-3
                                 SECTOR, BAKHTAWARRAM NAGAR, INDORE
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    ANIL KUMAR S/O SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA
                                 DUBE, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 RETIRED CH-33 SCHEME NO. 74-C VIJAY NAGAR,
                                 INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    ASHOK    KUMAR   S/O   SHRI   ANANDILAL
                                 SHRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: RETIRED 09, CLASSIC PURNIMA
                                 ESTATE, HAJARANA MAIN ROAD, INDORE
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    OMRPAKASH S/O SHRI MOHANLAL PAL, AGED
                                 ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED 34,
                                 MALI COLONY, INPUN BHOGAWA ROAD, DIST.
                                 SANAWADDIST. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....PETITIONERS
                           (BY SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA YADAV, ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY
                                 WATER RESOURSE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
                                 BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    CHIEF ENGINEER MADHYA PRADESH WATER
                                 RESOURSE DEPARTMENT NARMADA BHAWN,
                                 TULSI NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    CHIEF ENGINEER LOWER NARMADA PROJECTS
                                 SCHEME NO. 74 C INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 06-05-2024
17:14:17
                                                           2
                           (BY MS. HARSHLATA SONI, P.L./G.A.)

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

B y the instant petition, the petitioners are claiming that although they stood retired on 30th June 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 Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (Supra), this petition is allowed, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of annual increment 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 Court.

4. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Bahar