Rajendra Prasad Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 16180 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajendra Prasad Pandey 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. 14427 of 2024

                         BETWEEN:-
                         RAJENDRA PRASAD PANDEY S/O SHRI RAM KRISHNA
                         PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                         RETIRED ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION
                         OFFICER PANNA R/O WARDNO. 7 BASTI DEVENDRA
                         NAGAR PANNA DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                               PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
                               DEVELOPMENT      DEPARTMENT     VALLABH
                               BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (C.E.O.) JANPAT
                               PANCHAYAT PANNA DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         3.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER PANNA DISTRICT
                               PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI DILIP SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                               T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                         following:
                                                            ORDER

The issue on the present petition is with regard to entitlement of annual increment to the employee on the event of retirement.

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 reiterated 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 01.07.2020 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue fresh PPO in favour of the petitioner 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 pnm