Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mangilal Marmit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 15 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 12564 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. MANGILAL MARMIT S/O SHRI DULLIRAM
MARMIT, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED HEAD MASTER FROM GOVT. BOYS
MIDDLE SCHOOL IKLOD, BLOCK VIJAYPUR R/O
DISTRICT SHEOPUR M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NARESHLAL SHAKYA S/O SHRI BALURAM, AGED
ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED HEAD
MASTER FROM GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL
VICHPURI, BLOCK VIJAYPUR R/O VIJAYPUR,
DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RANGLAL RAWAT S/O SHRI TEJ SINGH RAWAT,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
HEAD MASTER FROM GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL
VICHPURI, BLOCK VIJAYPUR R/O VILLAGE
GOHATA, DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. BABULAL JATAV S/O SHRI RAMALE, AGED
ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED HEAD
MASTER FROM GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL
VICHPURI, BLOCK VIJAYPUR R/O VIJAYPUR,
DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHIR GIRIJA SHANKAR SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS).
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DISTRICT
SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAM KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing time: 16/05/2024
10:07:16 AM
2
3. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DISTRICT SHEOPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JOINT DIRECTOR, TREASURY AUDIT AND
PEN S ION MOTI MAHAL GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI S.S.KUSHWAH, LEARNED GA),
This petition coming on for HEARING this day, the 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. The petitioner No.1 stood retired on
30.06.2014 and petitioners No.2 to 4 stood retired on 30.06.2023 from the post
of Headmasters/Assistant Teacher, were denied increment on the pretext that
they are not entitled.
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 petitioners stood
retired on 30th June, 2014 and 30th June, 2023, therefore, they entitled to avail
the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2014 and
01.07.2023
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. 01.07.2014 (in case of petitioner No.1)
and 01.07.2023 (in case of petitioners No.2 to 4)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.
Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Rks
