Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shobha Pendharkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh 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. 14068 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SHOBHA PENDHARKAR D/O SHRI BASANT RAO
PONDHARKAR OCCUPATION: RETIRED UTD.
GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL GHOSIPURA, GUNA M
P. SANKUL KENDRA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NO
2 GUNA MP , DDO., BEO, DISTT GUNA ) R/O NEHRU BAL
VIDYA MANDIR, SHRIRAM COLONY GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NEERAJ SHRIVASTAVA- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JILA SHIKSHA ADHIKARI GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. AAHRAN SAVITRAN ADHIKARI (D.D.O.) B.E.O.
GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JILA PENSION ADHIKARI GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. JILA KOSALAY ADHIKARI GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MAN SINGH JADON- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
ORDER
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 28-05-2024
01:17:07 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
30.06.2021, 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, 2021, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment
which was to be added on 01.07.2021. 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. 01.07.2021 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
Vishal
