Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 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 10 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 12322 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
JITENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI KAPOOR SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED GOVT
SERVANT 104 WARD NO 3 WATER WORKS ROAD
BHIND MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SUNIL KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF WATER RESOURCE
DEPARTMENT TULSI NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE
D EPARTM EN T AMBAH MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE
D EPARTM EN T AMBAH DISTRICT MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER BHIND DISTRICT
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI M.S. JADON - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents
for not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioner, who retired on
31.12.2016, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.
2 . Learned counsel for petitioner submits that whether a government
employee retiring on 30th June of a year is entitled to avail the benefit of
increment as fixed on 1st of July/31st of December is being decided by the
Supreme Court recently in the case of the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL
& Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 dated
11.04.2023, wherein after considering the judgments of different High Courts
including the Madhya Pradesh High Court it has been held that benefit of annual
increment which is to be added on 1st of July every year shall be paid to the
employee who is going to be retired on 30th June of the said year. It is further
submitted that controversy is now no longer res integra. The present petitioner
stood retired on 31.12.2016, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of
annual increment which was to be added on 01.01.2017.
3 . Learned counsel for respondent/State has no objection to the prayer
so made by counsel for the petitioner.
4 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
5. 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.
6. In light of the aforesaid as well as the Circular dated 15.03.2024, the
respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to
be added w.e.f. 01.01.2017 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and
pension etc., and issue fresh pension payment order in favour of the petitioner,
if not already issued, that too within a period of three months from the date of
submission of certified copy of this order.
7 . Accordingly, petition stands allowed and disposed of in above
terms.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
