Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Kanti Devi 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. 14614 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT KANTI DEVI W/O LATE SHRI KRISHNA PAL
SINGH KUSHWAHA, AGED-66 YEARS, R/O 13
MARVADI BAAG LAHAR BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SURESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA S/O SHRI
GURUCHARAN LAL SHRIVASTAVA, AGED-67
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: RET. PEON 24 SHASTRI
NAGAR GWALIOR ROAD BHIND ` (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI R.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION GAUTAM
NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DIVISIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF
TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS MOTIMAHAL
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DIST. EDUCATION OFFICER (D.E.O.) BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DIST. PENSION OFFICER DIST. PENSION OFFICE
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. D I S T. TREASURY OFFICER BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER D.D.O. (B.E.O.)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHANDNI
NARWARIYA
Signing time: 31-May-24
11:39:52 AM
2
LAHAR BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER (B.E.O.) D.D. O
BLOCK ATER BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEEPAK KHOT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present
petition on behalf of petitioner no.2 with liberty to file afresh.
Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn for
petitioner no.2 with the aforesaid liberty.
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. Husband of the Petitioner no.1 stood
retired on 30.06.2012 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 husband of the present
petitioner stood retired on 30.06.2012, therefore, he is entitled to avail the
benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2012. 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 Government Advocate 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.
4. Learned Government Advocate further submits that husband of the
petitioner in the present case retired on 30.06.2012 and at such belated stage he
has filed this petition, therefore, he cannot be given benefit of interest in any
manner.
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, husband of the petitioner retired in the year 2012 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 husband of the petitioner shall be
entitled to arrears with interest only for three years prior to the date of filing of
the Writ Petition.
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 judgement of Apex Court in the case of Rushibhai (supra) and issue fresh
pension payment orders in favour of the husband 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.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Chandni
