R.K. Saxena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 15289 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

R.K. Saxena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 May, 2024

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                             1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                 ON THE 22 nd OF MAY, 2024
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 13777 of 2024

                          BETWEEN:-
                          R.K. SAXENA S/O SHRI RAM SWAROOP SAXENA, AGED
                          ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SUPERINTENDING
                          ENGINEER 157-158 INDUS EMPIRE NEAR POLICE
                          STATION BABARIYAKALAN SHAHPURA BHOPAL
                          DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI SARTHAK NEMA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                                FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                VALLABH BHAWAN MANTRALAYA DISTRICT
                                BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
                                B H O PA L HARSHVARDHAN COMPLEX, MATA
                                MANDIR, BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, BHOPAL DISTRICT
                                BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI PIYUSH BHATNAGAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)

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

Petitioner's contention is that petitioner is due to retire on 30.06.2024, therefore, they are entitled to grant of annual increment which would fall due on

01.07.2024.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others (Civil Appeal No.4349/2023), reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 401 it is held thus :-

"21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,

the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the

circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."

The same has been relied upon in the case of Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Com. Ltd. and another vs. S.R. Ramchandran and others (SLP (C) No.8219/2020) and the Supreme Court has held thus :-

" M r . Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellant's seeks to distinguish this authority by pointing out that Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997 is different from Rule 10 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules,2008 as also Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh (Pay Revision) Rules, 2009 and Rule 10 of Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules,2008.

We have gone through these rules and in our opinion, though these Rules are differently phrased, they have the same import, on the strength of which the Co-ordinate Bench had

dismissed the petition of the employer. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders assailed in this set of petitions and these petitions shall stand dismissed."

Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra ) and S.R. Ramchandran (supra), this petition is allowed, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of annual increment which is to be added with effect from 01.07.2024 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue PPO in favour of the petitioner who is to retire on 30/06/2024, within a period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE MTK