Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE LOK ADALAT
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
&
SHRI TAPAN KUMAR TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE
ON THE 11 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 17462 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
1. MAHESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA S/O LATE SHRI
RADHESHYAM SHRIVASTAVA, AGED-68 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRMENT RAJGARH GATE,
LITORIYA GALI DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SURESH CHANDRA MISHRA S/O SHRI LAXMI
PRASAD MISHRA, AGED-65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIREMENT R/O PANCHASHEEL NAGAR, GALI
NO. 1, CIVIL LINE DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. LOKENDRA BABU SHRIVASTAVA S/O LATE SHRI
RAMCHARAN LAL SHRIVASTAVA, AGED-65
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: RETIRMENT R/O 19/44,
DHAMTALPURA MARG (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RAMNIVAS KHARE S/O LATE SHRI BRIJLAL
KHARE, AGED-62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIREMENT R/O BAIDHO WALI GALI, GANDHI
ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PRABHUAYAL AHIRWAR S/O LATE SHRI HARU
AHIRWAR, AGED-65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRMENT R/O VILLAGE BILHARI DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. RAVINDRA BHUSHAN KHARE S/O SHRI
BRIJMOHAN KHARE, AGED-64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRMENT R/O 11/3, B.S.N.L.
NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, RAJGARH GATE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SURESH CHANDRA SONI S/O LATE SHRI
RAMCHARAN SONI, AGED-64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRMENT R/O PAWIYA KA
BAGH, RELIANCE TOWER KE PASS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHANDNI
NARWARIYA
Signing time: 15-May-24
10:27:29 AM
2
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI O.P. MEENA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY GOVT.OF MP VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE COLLECTOR DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. THE DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SOHIT MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for conciliation this day, the Bench passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard.
The instant petition has been preferred by petitioner, under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for
not extending the benefit of increment. Petitioners, who retired on 30.06.2014,
30.06.2017, 30.06.2017, 30.06.2020, 30.06.2017, 30.06.2017, 30.06.2017
respectively were denied increment on the pretext that they are not entitled.
2 . Learned counsel for petitioners 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, is 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 petitioners stood
retired on 30.06.2014, 30.06.2017, 30.06.2017, 30.06.2020, 30.06.2017,
30.06.2017, 30.06.2017 respectively, therefore, they are entitled to avail the
benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2014, 01.07.2017,
01.07.2017, 01.07.2020, 01.07.2017, 01.07.2017, 01.07.2017 respectively. The
said aspect has also been dealt with by the Full Bench of this Court also in the
case of Ratanlal Rathore Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
(Writ Petition No.4118 of 2020) decided on 28.07.2023.
3. Learned counsel for respondent/State could not dispute the passing of
said order. However, they submits that it appears that SLP arising out of
judgment of Division Bench of this Court is still pending consideration before
the Supreme Court.
4. Heard the counsels 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 of that year. Once the Apex Court as well as Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Ratanlal Rathore (supra) 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 . Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual
increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2014, 01.07.2017, 01.07.2017,
01.07.2020, 01.07.2017, 01.07.2017, 01.07.2017 respectively and recalculate the
benefit of retiral dues and pension etc. and issue fresh pension payment order in
favour of the petitioners, if not already issued, that too within a period of three
months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
7. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) (TAPAN KUMAR TRIVEDI )
MEMBER MEMBER
Chandni
