Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Niwas Dom vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 May, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 30 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 14948 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. RAM NIWAS DOM S/O LATE SHRI MATHURA LAL,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, WARD NO 12 SHEOPUR
MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MATADIN DESHLEHARA S/O LATE SHRI
MUNGARAM DESHLEHARA, AGED ABOUT 70
YEAR S , PALI ROAD WARD NO. 10, SHEOPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SUDHIR CHATURVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS),
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH :
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (RURAL DEVELOPMENT)
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD
PANCHAYAT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI M.S.JADON, LEARNED GA),
This petition coming on for HEARING this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1 . The instant petition has been preferred by petitioners, under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the
respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. Petitioners, who retired
on 30.06.2013, were denied increment on the pretext that they are not entitled.
2 . Learned counsel for petitioners 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 present petitioner stood
retired on 30th June, 2013, therefore, they are entitled to avail the benefit of
annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2013. 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 counsel 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. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
5. 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.
6 . Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual
increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2013 and recalculate the benefit
of retiral dues and pension etc. and issue fresh pension payment order in favour
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.
7. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Rks
