Balkrishna Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12925 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Balkrishna Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2024

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                                           1
                          IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT GWALIOR
                                                  BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2024
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 12008 of 2024

                         BETWEEN:-
                         BALKRISHNA GUPTA S/O SHRI SUKHNANDAN GUPTA,
                         AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED GOVT.
                         SERVANT R/O 85, SHIVAJI NAGAR THATIPUR GWALIOR
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI AKSHAT KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TO BE SERVED
                               THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH
                               BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    ENGINEER  IN    CHIEF WATER RESOURCE
                               DEPARTMENT TULSI NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         3.    CHIEF      ENGINEER WATER    RESOURCE
                               DEPARTMENT THATIPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    EXECUTIVE     ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE
                               D EPARTM EN T DABRA GWALIOR (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         5.    DIST. PENSION      OFFICER GWALIOR (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI DEEPAK KHOT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                               Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                            ORDER

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India seeking the following reliefs:-

"7.1) It is therefore, prayed that Writ petition may kindly be allowed. 7.2) Respondent may kindly be directed to pay annual increment and arrears due from 01.01.2008 alongwith interest and consequential benefits.

7.3) Cost of petition may also be kindly allowed.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had joined the Water Resource department on 04.05.1972 and after completing 35 years in the service he retired from the post of Sub-Engineer on 31.12.2007, however, prior to this, she has rendered her services and earned the benefit of increment for previous year 2006-07 as usual. However, benefit of increment was being

given from 1st January to employees who are still in the service, but in case of petitioner who has retired due to period of superannuation on 31.12.2007, benefit of increment for past one year service was not allowed by respondents without any reason. In case petitioner has not been given benefit of increment earned earlier up to 31.12.2007, then it will have great loss on pensionary benefits as well.

3. It is further submitted that this Court in various cases has allowed the benefit of increment after the matter has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others, civil appeal no. 2471/2023 dated 11-04-2023. Benefit of annual increment which is to be added on 1s' of January every year being paid to employees who would retire on 31st December of the said year. The case of petitioner is on identical terms and petitioner is thus also entitled to get the benefit of increment of 2007 on 31.12.2007. Hence, aggrieved with denial of benefit of increment on 31.12.2007, present petition is being filed.

4. On the basis of aforesaid, a limited prayer has been made by the

counsel for the petitioner that the respondents authorities may kindly be directed that if petitioner files fresh representation, the same may be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible, so the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed.

5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate has submitted that if the petitioner files a fresh representation then the same will be considered and decided in accordance with law within a time bound period.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

7. After going through the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), in para 6.3 and 6.7 it appears that the view of M.P. High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria and ors. vs . State of Madhya Pradesh has been considered in favour of employee who is retiring on 30th June/31st December of that year. Once the Apex Court has decided the controversy and found the employee entitled for the benefit of approval of entitlement to receive increment while rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiency then it appears that petitioner has made out his case.

8. In light of the aforesaid as well as the Circular dated 15.03.2024, this Court finds it expedient to dispose of this petition with a direction to the

petitioner to file a fresh representation along with all relevant documents within two days before the respondent authorities, who shall decide the same without insisting on limitation by passing a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a further period of seven working days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

9. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

E-copy/Certified copy as per rules and directions.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu