Ghanshyam Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 16027 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ghanshyam Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 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 29th OF MAY, 2024

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 14863 of 2024

       BETWEEN:-

       GHANSHYAM    SHUKLA   S/O   LATE    SHRI
       SHRIDHARLAL SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
       OCCUPATION: RETIRED HEAD MASTER FROM
       GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL PASONKHURD BLOCK
       SABALGARH R/O SABALGARH DISTT MORENA
       (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                    .....PETITIONER

       (BY SHRI G.S. SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

       AND

1.     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
       PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
       SCHOOL    EDUCATION,  VALLABH   BHAVAN
       BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.     THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MORENA
       DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.     THE DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, DISTRICT
       MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.     THE JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY AUDIT AND
       PENSION MOTI MAHAL, GWALIOR (MADHYA
       PRADESH)

                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS

       (BY SHRI NEELESH SINGH TOMAR - GOVERNMENT
       ADVOCATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
                                    2

                               ORDER

1. 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, who retired on 30.06.2021, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner 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 stood retired on 30th June, 2021, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2021. 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 counsel for the petitioner further submits that earlier an SLP (Civil) No.8119/2020 was preferred by the respondents challenging the orders passed in W.P.No.298/2020 and

W.A.No.319/2020 but the same has been dismissed on 11-07- 2023.

4. Learned counsel 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. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

6. 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.

7. Since, petitioner retired in the year 2021 and is claiming his outstanding claim, therefore, as per the judgment 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 (if in the present case it applies).

8. Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual

increment, recalculate the benefit of retiral dues, pension and arrears etc. as per the judgment 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.

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

                                                      (ANAND PATHAK)
Anil*                                                     JUDGE

             ANIL KUMAR
             CHAURASIYA
             2024.05.30
             10:54:42
             +05'30'