Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pushkarlal vs Madhya Pradesh Pashchim Kshetra Vidhut ... on 27 May, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 27 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 14296 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. PUSHKARLAL S/O LATE SHRI RATANLAL
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED, R/O 145, SARDAR PATEL MARG,
BADNAWAR, DISTT. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BHANWAR SINGH S/O SHRI RAM SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED, R/O
MELA MAIDAN WARD NO.4, MANAWAR DIST.
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PREM SINGH S/O SHRI SARDAR SINGH THAKUR,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED,
R/O KUSKSHI, DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI HARSH YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MADHYA PRADESH PASHCHIM KSHETRA
VIDHUT VITARAN COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH
ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY G. P. H COMPOUND,
POLO GROUND INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND A) MADHYA
PRADESH PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN
COMPANY LIMITED, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER CITY CIRCLE
MADHYA PRADESH PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDHYUT
VITARAN COMPANY LIMITED, DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. REGIONAL ACCOUNTS OFFICERS MADHYA
PRADESH PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDHUT VITARAN
COMPANY LIMITED DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 27-05-2024
17:38:43
2
5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MADHYA PRADESH
PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDHUT VITARAN COMPANY
LIMITED, KUKSHI DIVISION DIST. DHAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MADHYA PRADESH
PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDHUT VITARAN COMPANY
LIMITED BADNAVAR, DIST. DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. ASSISTANT ENGINEER MADHYA PRADESH
PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDHUT VITARAN COMPANY
LIMITED, MANAWAR DIST . DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUDARSHAN JOSHI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the instant petition, the petitioners are claiming that although they
stood retired on 30.06.2020, 30.06.2016 & 30.06.2022 respectively and the
annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of that year, but they were not
granted the said benefit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in
the present case has already been settled by the Supreme Court recently in
Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 (The Director {Admn. and HR KPTCK and
Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.) wherein it has been held that benefit of
annual increment which was to be added on 1st of July every year shall be paid
to the employee who got retired on 30th of June of the said year, therefore, the
present petitioners are also entitled to get the said benefit.
3. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passed by
Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamni (Supra), this petition is allowed,
directing the respondents to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to
be added with effect from 01.07.2020, 01.07.2016 & 30.06.2022 respectively
and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue fresh PPO in
favour of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of
submitting copy of this Court.
4. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
