Ashok Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 14975 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ashok Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2024

Author: Subodh Abhyankar

Bench: Subodh Abhyankar

                                                       1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
                                               ON THE 20 th OF MAY, 2024
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 13603 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    ASHOK    KUMAR    S/O   SHRI  LAXMANLAL
                                 UPADHYAY,    AGED    ABOUT   69   YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: RETIRED TEACHER 150 LAXMIBAI
                                 MARG, NEAR MIDDLE SCHOOL, BADNAWAR,
                                 DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    HASIR MOHAMMAD S/O NASIR MOHAMMAD
                                 QURESHI, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 RETIRED TEACHER 41 RANAPRATAP MARG,
                                 KAZIPURA,   BADNAWAR,    DISTRICT  DHAR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    RAJENDRA SINGH RATHORE S/O PRATAP SINGH
                                 RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 RETIRED TEACHER TEACHER COLONY, PRATAP
                                 NIWAS, BADNAWAR, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                              .....PETITIONERS
                           (BY SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR MITHA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
                                 SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
                                 VALLABH    BHAWAN,  BHOPAL    (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    THE  COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
                                 GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    THE JOINT DIRECTOR SCHOOL EDUCATION,
                                 CHIMANBAGH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER COLLECTORATE
                                 CAMPUS, DHAR DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    THE      DIVISIONAL   PENSION    OFFICER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 20-05-2024
17:42:30
                                                        2
                                 COLLECTORATE CAMPUS, INDORE DIST. INDORE
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY MS. HARSHLATA SONI - G.A./P.L.)

                                  This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                 ORDER

B y the instant petition, the petitioners are claiming that although they stood retired on 30.06.2016, 30.06.2009 and 30.06.2009 and the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of those year, but they were not granted the said benefit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the present case has already been settled by the Supreme Court recently in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 (The Director {Admn. and HR KPTCL and Ors Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors) wherein it has been held that benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 1st of July every year shall be paid to the employee who got retired on 30th of June of the said year, therefore the present petitioners are also entitled to get the said benefit.

3. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), this petition is allowed, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added with effect from 01.07.2016, 01.07.2009 and 01.07.2009 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue fresh PPO in favour of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this order.

4. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Pankaj