Raj Kumar Mundra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 13653 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Raj Kumar Mundra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2024

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                   1
 IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                            BEFORE
                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                        ON THE 10 th OF MAY, 2024
                   WRIT PETITION No. 12811 of 2024

BETWEEN:-
RAJ KUMAR MUNDRA S/O LATE SHRI BRAJNAND
MUNDRA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PENSIONER (RETIRED SAHAYK VIKAS VISTAR
ADHIKARI OFFICE JANPAD PANCHAYAT MURAR
DISTRICT GWALIOR ) R/O D.M. 210 DINDAYAL NAGAR
GWALIOR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NEERAJ SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE )

AND
1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT EVAM
      GRAMIN VIKAS VIBHAG M.P. VALLABH BHAWAN
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    JANPAD PANCHAYAT MORAR, THROUGH MUKHY
      KARYPALAN   ADHIKARI DISTRICT GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    ZILA PENSION ADHIKARI GWALIOR DISTRICT
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    ZILA KOSHALAY ADHIKARI GWALIOR NEW
      COLLECTOR PARISAR SIROL ROAD, GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJEEV UPADHYAY - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

1. By the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that although he stood

retired on 30.06.2023 and the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of that year, but he 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 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 petitioner is also entitled to get the said benefit.

3. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passed by

the Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), this petition is allowed, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added with effect from 01.07.2023 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 order.

4. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed. Certified copy as per rules.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE vc VARSHA CHATURVEDI 2024.05.10 18:17:22 +05'30'