Ratiram Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 15963 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ratiram Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 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 29 th OF MAY, 2024
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 14786 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RATIRAM SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI BHORU LAL
                           SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           RETIRED R/O INFRONT OF SANADYA DHARMSHALA
                           ASHOK GALI, KAILARAS DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI R.B.S. TOMAR - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN,
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    DISTRICT   EDUCATION    OFFICER DISTRICT
                                 MORENA , (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DISTRICT MORENA
                                 , (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI DEEPAK KHOT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

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. Petitioner retired on 30.06.2019 was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that writ petition No.1552/2020 was filed by the petitioner seeking joint relief regarding quashing of recovery, and also grant of second krammonati and annual increment w.e.f. 01.07.2019 which is pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Court. However, the petitioner has also submitted an application in the said writ petition for withdrawing/deleting the relief in respect of one increment on superannuation on 30.06.2019.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner 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 30.06.2019, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2019. 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.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General 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.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that petitioner in the present case retired on 30.06.2019 and at such belated stage he has filed this petition, therefore, he cannot be given benefit of interest in any manner.

6. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

7. 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.

8. Since, petitioner retired in the year 2019 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.

9. 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.

10. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ojha