Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pooran Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 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 22 nd OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 14032 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. POORAN SINGH TOMAR S/O SHRI SHIV SINGH
TOMAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED H NO 498 WARD NO 1 HARI OM
MARKET JOTAI ROAD PORSA DISTRICT
MORENA MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ISHAWARI PRASAD SHARMA S/O SHRI POORAN
NARAYAN SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O
HN 124, GADIYA RAIPUR, PORSA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....petitionersS
(BY SHRI ANUJ M. GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION SATPURA
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF TREASURY
AND ACCOUNTS MOTIMAHAL, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ROHIT SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER)
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. The petitioner No.1, who retired on
30.06.2021 and the petitioner No.2 who retired on 31.12.2023, were denied
increment 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 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 petitioner No.1 stood retired
on 30th June, 2021, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual
increment which was to be added on 01.07.2021 and the petitioner No.2 stood
retired on 31st December, 2023, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of
annual increment which was to be added on 01.01.2024. 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 has made out his
case.
6. Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefits of annual
increments to the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 which were to be added
w.e.f. 01.07.2021 and 01.01.2024 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.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
