Subhash Chandra Sharma vs The State Of M.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 15854 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Subhash Chandra Sharma vs The State Of M.P. on 28 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 28 th OF MAY, 2024
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 13478 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA S/O SHRI RAM
                                 SHANKAR JI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: RET. PATWARI 51, PARAS NAGAR,
                                 UJJAIN DIST. UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    SHANTILAL PATIDAR S/O SHRI NANDRAM JI,
                                 AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RET.
                                 PATWARI    R/O.,   GRAM    AND   POST-
                                 KAMTHANA,TEHSIL KHACHROD DISTT. UJJAIN
                                 M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    MADANLAL SHARMA S/O SHRI SHANKARLAL JI,
                                 AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RET.
                                 PEON. R/O GRAM-KADAI TEHSIL MAHIDPUR
                                 DISTT, UJJAIN M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

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

                           2.    THE      COMMISSIONER     M.P.REVENUE
                                 DEPARTMENT   REVENUE  BHAWAN GOVT.OF
                                 M.P.ARERA HILLS BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    THE COLLECTOR COLLECTOR OFFICE UJJAIN
                                 KOTHI PALACE, UJJAIN DISTT .UJJAIN M.P.
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    THE TEHSILDAR TEHSIL- GHATIYA DISTT, UJJAIN
                                 M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:23:04
                                                         2
                           5.    THE TEHSILDAR TEHSIL - KHACHROD DISTT-
                                 UJJAIN M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           6.    THE TEHSILDAR TEHSIL -MAHIDPUR DISTT. -
                                 UJJAIN M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           7.    THE JOINT DIRECTOR KOSH LEKHA AVM
                                 P E N S I O N UJJAIN DIVISION, UJJAIN M.P.
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
                           ( BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)

                                  This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                  ORDER

1. By the instant petition, the petitioners are claiming that although they

stood retired on 30.06.2021, 30.06.2015 and 30.06.2006 respectively and the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of that year, but they have not been 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 petitioner is 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 01.07.2021, 01.07.2015 and 01.07.2006 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 ns