Ajit Kulkarni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 13659 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ajit Kulkarni 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. 12372 of 2024

BETWEEN:-
AJIT KULKARNI S/O LATE SHR BHALCHANDRA
KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED R/O 64 SHAKUNTALAPURI THATIPUR MORAR
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NAKUL KHEDKAR - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
      SECRETARY,   PANCHAYAT    &      RURAL
      DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,        VALLABH
      BHAVAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    SUPERINTENDENT         ENGINEER, RURAL
      ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION MORENA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING
      SERVICES  DIVISION  MORENA   (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

4.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DISTRICT MORENA
      (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 30.06.2014 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 01.07.2014 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 18:16:07 +05'30'