Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramsiya Raipuriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 13 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 12422 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. RAMSIYA RAIPURIYA S/O SHRI GANGA DEEN
RAIPURIYA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED AS HEAD MASTER FROM
GOVT GIRLS PRIMARY SCHOOL MALANPUR
DISTRICT BHIND MP, R/O ASHOK COLONY NEAR
HANUMAN MANDIR MORAR DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRAVAN KUMAR CHANSAULIYA S/O SHRI
RAMSAJEEVAN CHANSAULIYA, AGED ABOUT 62
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: RETIRED ASSISTANT
TEACHER, R/O WARD NO. 14 PROFESSOR
COLONY MEHONA- BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DHAN SINGH MAHOR S/O SHRI MUNGARAM,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
TEACHER FROM GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL ALAMPUR, TEHSIL LAHAR, DISTRICT
BHIND,M.P., R/O VILLAGE RARUA NO. 2 POST
GANGIPUR TEHSIL LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JAYNARAYAN SHARMA S/O SHRI PRABHUDAYAL
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED ASSISTANT TEACHER RETIRED FROM
PRIMAY SCHOOL BALAK RAHAWALI UBARI, R/O
VILLAGE RAHAWALI UBARI POST RAHAWALI
TEHSIL AND BLOCK LAHAR,DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI RUDRA PRATAP SINGH KAURAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 14-05-2024
11:50:29 AM
2
PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION GAUTAM
NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DIVISIONAL JOINT, DIRECTOR TREASURY,
ACCOUNT & PENSION, GWALIOR CHAMBAL
DIVISION, MOTIMAHAL, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (D.E.O.) BHIND,
DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER/ PRESCRIBED
OFFICER PENSION OFFICE BHIND, DISTRICT
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, BHIND DISTRICT
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI NILESH SINGH TOMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The instant petition has been preferred by petitioners under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for
not extending the benefit of increment. Petitioner No.1, who retired on
30.06.2018 and petitioner No.2 who retired on 30.06.2023, petitioner no.3 who
retired on 30.06.2011 and petitioner no.4 who retired on 30.06.2010 were
denied increments 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 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 No.1
stood retired on 30.06.2018 and petitioner No.2 stood retired on 30.06.2023,
petitioner No.3 who retired on 30.06.2011 and petitioner No.4 who retired on
30.06.2010, therefore, they are entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment
which were to be added on 01.07.2018, 01.07.2023, 01.07.2011 and 01.07.2010
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, he 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 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 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 petitioners have made out
their case.
6. Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual
increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2018, 01.07.2023, 01.07.2011
and 01.07.2010 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.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Rohit
