Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shakuntla Khatarkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 May, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 30 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 14974 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. SHAKUNTLA KHATARKAR, W/O DEVIDAS
KHATARKAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRINCIPAL GOVT. HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL KHANDARA, DISTRICT
BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. NUTAN BHARGAVA, W/O RAJEEV
BHARGAVA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRINCIPAL GOVT. HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL KHEDI SWLIGARH,
DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SUDHA GAUTAM - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER BETUL,
DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER BETUL, DISTRICT
BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER BETUL, DISTRICT
BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DILIP SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHARAN JEET
KAUR
Signing time: 6/3/2024
12:08:48 PM
2
ORDER
Petitioners' contention is that petitioners are due to retire on 30.06.2024,
therefore, they are entitled to grant of annual increment which would fall due on
01.07.2024.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of the Director (Admn. and
HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others (Civil Appeal
No.4349/2023), reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 401 it is held thus :-
"21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the
appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ
petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering
their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with
good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with
the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the
circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
The same has been relied upon in the case of Madhya Pradesh Power
Transmission Com. Ltd. and another vs. S.R. Ramchandran and others
(SLP (C) No.8219/2020) and the Supreme Court has held thus :-
" M r . Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the appellant's seeks to distinguish this
authority by pointing out that Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka
Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997 is different
from Rule 10 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules,2008 as also Rule 9 of the
Madhya Pradesh (Pay Revision) Rules, 2009 and Rule 10 of
Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules,2008.
We have gone through these rules and in our opinion,
though these Rules are differently phrased, they have the same
import, on the strength of which the Co-ordinate Bench had
dismissed the petition of the employer. In these circumstances, we
are not inclined to interfere with the orders assailed in this set of
petitions and these petitions shall stand dismissed."
Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgments passed by the
Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) and S.R.
Ramchandran (supra), this petition is allowed, directing the respondents to
grant the benefit of annual increment which is to be added with effect from
01.07.2024 if the petitioners are so entitled to, and recalculate the benefit of
retiral dues and pension and issue PPO in favour of the petitioners who are to
retire on 30.06.2024, within a period of three months from the date of
submitting copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
sjk
