Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkaran Sharma vs The Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission ... on 27 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 27 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 14394 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAMKARAN SHARMA S/O SHRI DAYARAM SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETORED
SECIROTU GUARD FROM THE OFFICE OF MPEB
MAHENDRA NAGAR NAVADA BAAG ATER ROAD
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI G.S. SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE MADHYA PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION
COMPANY LIMITED BLOCK NO 4 THROUGH ITS
PRESIDENT/ MANAGING DIRECTOR SHAKTI
BHAWAN RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER MADHYA
PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION COM. LTD.
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MADHYA PRADESH
POWER TRANSMISSION COM LTD. GWALIOR
TESTING DIVISION NO. 2 ROSHANI GHAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SOHIT MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
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 30.06.2011 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
30.06.2011, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment
which was to be added on 01.07.2011. 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 Additional Advocate General 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. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that petitioner in
the present case retired on 30.06.2011 and at such belated stage he has filed
this petition, therefore, he cannot be given benefit of interest in any manner.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
6. 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.
7. Since, petitioner retired in the year 2011 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.
8. 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.
9. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
