Anand Kumar Richhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 16197 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anand Kumar Richhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 May, 2024

                                                            1                             WP-14581-2024
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
                                                 ON THE 30 th OF MAY, 2024
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 14581 of 2024

                          BETWEEN:-
                          ANAND KUMAR RICHHARIYA S/O SHRI S L
                          RICHHARIYA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          RETIRED AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WRD BHOPAL R/O
                          HOUSE NO. C/183 SONAGIRI NEAR PURSHOTTAM GAUR
                          PARK DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI AKHIL SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WRD MINISTRY BHOPAL
                                VALLABH BHAWAN DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    CHIEF ENGINEER (E.N.M.) W.R.D. OF MADHYA
                                PRADESH DAM SAFETY BHAWAN, LINK ROAD,
                                BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    PENSION    OFFICER  OF   DISTRICT BHOPAL
                                DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI C. K. MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt 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.

This issue has been earlier considered in the case of T h e Director

2 WP-14581-2024 (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others (Civil Appeal No.4349/2023), reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 401 wherein the Supreme Court has 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 :-

"Mr. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf o f 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

3 WP-14581-2024

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 was to be added with effect from 01.07.2011 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue fresh PPO in favour of the petitioner who was retired on 30.06.2011 within a period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL) JUDGE shahina