Sujanmal Pagariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 15717 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sujanmal Pagariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 27 May, 2024

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                   BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                ON THE 27 th OF MAY, 2024
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 13621 of 2024

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SUJANMAL PAGARIYA S/O SHRI RATANLAL JI, AGED
                          ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RET. UDT. 45,
                          SHIKSHAK COLONY, NEEMUCH DIST. NEEMUCH
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI RAKESH PAL, ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVT. OF M.P. SCHOOL
                                EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN,
                                BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    THE COMMISSIONER EDUCATION AND PUBLIC
                                INSTRUCTIONS GOVT OF M.P.,GAUTAM NAGAR,
                                BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER NEEMUCH,
                                DISTT. NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    THE JOINT DIRECTOR KOSH LEKHA AVM
                                PEN SION UJJAIN. DIVISION UJJAIN (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          5.    THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER NEEMUCH.
                                DISTT. NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          6.    JILA PENSION ADHIKARI, NEEMUCH. VITT SEVA
                                NEEMUCH.     DISTT.  NEEMUCH     (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                          (SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT - G.A. FOR STATE)

                                T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
KOUSHAL
Signing time: 5/28/2024
10:17:42 AM
                                                                2
                          following:
                                                                 ORDER

By the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that although he stood retired on 31.12.2008 and the annual increment was to be added on 1st of January of that year, but he was not granted the said benefit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 KPTCL 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/January every year shall be paid

to the employee who got retired on 30th of June/31st December of the said year, therefore, the present petitioner is also entitled to get the said benefit.

3. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has already submitted a representation Annx.P/3 dated 18.3.2024 before the respondent No.3 but the said represent has not been decided till this date.

4. Counsel for the State submits that respondent No.3 is not the competent authority.

5. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), the petitioner is directed to submit a representation before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. The competent authority is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of C.P.Mundinamani (supra) within a period of 3 months from the date of filing of certified copy of the order passed today and to grant the benefit of one annual increment and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue fresh

PPO in favour of the petitioner.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE MK