Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwan Dayal Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 16 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 13249 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BHAGWAN DAYAL SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI
NATHURAM SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PENSIONER SEVANIVRAT PRADHAN
ADHYAPAK GOVT MADHYMIK SCHOOL RAMDI BLOCK
CHACHODA DISTRICT GUNA SANKUL KENDRA GOVT
EXCELLENCE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
BEENAGANJ DISTRICT GUNA DDO BEO CHACHODA
DISTRICT GUNA R/O GIRLS SCHOOL KE PICHE WARD
NO. 10 BEENAGANJ DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NEERAJ SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JILA SHIKSHA ADHIKARI DISTRICT GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. AHRAN SAMVITRAN ADHIKARI D.D.O. B.E.O.
CHACHODA, GUNA DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. JILA PENSION ADHIKARI D I S T R I C T GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. JILA KOSHALAY ADHIKARI GUNA DISTRICT
GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEEPAK KHOT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Signing time: 5/17/2024
4:28:54 PM
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. 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. Petitioner retired on 30.06.2010 was
denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.
2 . 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 retired on
30.06.2010, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment
which was to be added on 01.07.2010. 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 Advocate for respondent/State could not dispute the passing
o f 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 petitioner has made out his case.
6. Since, petitioner retired in the year 2010 and is claiming long standing
claim, therefore, as per the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Rushibhai
Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, AIR Online
2022 SC 735, it is clarified that petitioner shall be entitled to arrears with
interest only for three years prior to the date of filing of the Writ Petition.
7 . Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual
increment, recalculate the benefit of retiral dues, pension and arrears etc. as per
the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Rushibhai (supra) and issue fresh
pension payment orders 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.
8. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Anil*
