Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshyam Singh Rathore 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. 12841 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
GHANSHYAM SINGH RATHORE S/O SHRI MASAL
SINGH RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED FROM THE POST OF SUB
INSPECTOR R/O FRIENDS COLONY GUNA DISTRICT
GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI D. S. RAJAWAT - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
VALLABH BHAVAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
HEADQUARTERS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTRICT
GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TREASURY, ACCOUNTS
AND PENSION, MOTIMAHAL GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. THE DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI NILESH SINGH TOMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 14-05-2024
11:50:29 AM
2
following:
ORDER
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. The petitioner, who retired as Sub
Inspector on 30.06.2015, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not
entitled.
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 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 30th June, 2015, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual
increment which was to be added on 01.07.2015.
Learned counsel for respondent/State could not dispute the passing of
s aid 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.
Heard.
After going through the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case
o f 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 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.
Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual
increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2015 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.
Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Rohit
