Madhya Pradesh High Court
Purushottam Singh Bhadauria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 May, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 28 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 13232 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
PURUSHOTTAM SINGH BHADAURIA S/O SHRI
SHIVNATH SINGH BHADAURIA, AGED ABOUT 70
YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O WARD
NO. 9 BAMBA KA KINARA RAJNAGAR BHAROLI ROAD
BHIND M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI R.K. SHARMA- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISTRICT BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT TREASRUY OFFICER DISRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NILESH SINGH TOMAR- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. The instant petition has been preferred by petitioner, under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-
(i) That, the respondent kindly directed to extend the
benefit of one increment to the petitioner on
discharging his regular service up to 31 December.
(ii) That, respondent kindly further directed to make
pay fixation and revise their pension by adding one
increment and also make payment of arrear with the
interest of 12% p.a..
(iii) That, the respondent's authority be further
directed to decide the representation.
(iv) That, the other relief doing justice including cost
be awarded.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner retired on
31.12.2015 and increment becomes due immediately in the next month i.e.
01.01.2016 as he has rendered his services to the department for the complete
year. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for the said benefit of receiving increment
which is due on 01.01.2016. Learned counsel for petitioner further 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 31.12.2015, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual
increment which was to be added on 01.01.2016. 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 Advocate for respondent/State could not dispute the passing
o f 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. Since, petitioner retired in the year 2015 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.
7. 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.
8. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Vishal
