Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Kumar Sitlani 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. 14364 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAMESH KUMAR SITLANI, S/O SHRI LATE BHOJRAJ
MAL SITLANI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT,
DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, GAUTAM
NAGAR, BHOPAL, R/O I-198-199, AIRPORT ROAD,
PANCHVATI COLONY, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANDEEP SINGH BAGHEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DIRECTORATE OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, MANTRALAYA,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER, SATPURA
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DILIP SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
The issue in 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
01.07.2016 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
sjk
