Ram Kumar Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 16168 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ram Kumar Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 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 30 th OF MAY, 2024
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 15237 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAM KUMAR KHARE S/O SHRI HARGOVIND KHARE,
                           AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O
                           WARD NO. 32 BALADAR MOHALLA DATIA DISTRICT
                           DATIA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI PALLAV TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
                                 SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.)
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    DIRECTOR THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                 VALLABH   BHAWAN,   BHOPAL  (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    DEPUTY DIRECTOR FARMER WELFARE AND
                                 AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT DATIA (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           4.    ASSISTANT LAND CONSERVATION OFFICER SUB
                                 DIVISION DATIA DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    DISTRICT   PENSION   OFFICER OFFICE OF
                                 DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DATIA (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI G.K. AGARWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioner, who retired on 31.12.2017, 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/31st of December of a year is entitled to avail the benefit of increment as fixed on 1st of July/1st of January 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/January every year shall be paid to the employee who is going to be retired on 30th June/31st of December of the year. It is further submitted that controversy is now no longer res integra. The present petitioner stood retired on 31.12.2017, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.01.2018.

3 . Learned counsel for respondent/State has no objection to the prayer so made by counsel for the petitioner.

4 . Heard learned 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/31st December of that year. Once the Apex Court

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. In light of the aforesaid as well as the Circular dated 15.03.2024, the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.01.2018 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension etc., and issue fresh pension payment order 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.

7 . Accordingly, petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ojha