Jagdeesh Prasad Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 15283 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jagdeesh Prasad Sharma 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. 14045 of 2024

                          BETWEEN:-
                          JAGDEESH PRASAD SHARMA S/O SHRI BHAGWAN LAL
                          SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          RETIRED UDT GOVT AKIKRAT SHALA HIGHER
                          SECONDARY SCHOOL MYANA SANKUL KENDRA GOVT
                          HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL MYANA DISTRICT
                          GUNA DDO BEO DISTRICT GUNA MP MADARN
                          CHILDREN SCHOOL KE PICHE SONI COLONY GUNA MP
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI NEERAJ SHIRVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

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

                          2.    ZILA SHIKSHA ADHIKARI GUNA DISRICT GUNA
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    AHARAN SANVITARAN ADHIKARI, (D.D.O.) B.E.O.
                                GUNA DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    ZILA PENSION ADHIKARI GUNA DISTRICT GUNA ,
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    ZILA KOSHALAY ADHIKARI         GUNA DISTRICT
                                GUNA , (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI ROHIT SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER)

                                Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
Signature Not Verified
                                                           ORDER

Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 5/22/2024 6:40:29 PM

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 on 30.06.2022, 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 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 stood retired on 30th June, 2022, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2022. 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 petitioner has made out his case.

6 . Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2022 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.

7. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu