Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Krishna Kothari 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. 14657 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. VIJAY KRISHNA KOTHARI S/O LATE SHREE
DEVI HARI RAM KOTHARI, AGED ABOUT 66
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: RETD. UD. DFO.
SHIVPURI R/O SHIV SHAKTI NAGAR, TV
TOWER ROAD, NEAR KOTHARI MILK DAIRY
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAM KUMAR KEWAT S/O LATE SHRI RAGHU
NATH KEWAT, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RET. UDC D F O 7 SHIVSHAKTI
NAGAR TV TOWAR ROAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. RADHE SHYAM TIWARI S/O LATE SHRI
SHREE RAM CHARAN LAL TIWARI, AGED
ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FORESTER
D F O 7 SHIVSHAKTI NASGAR TV TOWER
ROAD SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAJ SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND ORGANISATION ARERA HILLS
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
FOREST BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
TERRITORIAL FOREST DEVISION SHIPVURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI M.S. JADON - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission 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. Petitioner No.1
retired on 30.06.2020, petitioner No.2 on 30.06.2022 and petitioner No.3
on 30.06.2016 were denied increment on the pretext that they are not
entitled.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner 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 petitioners retired on 30.06.2020, 30.06.2022 and
30.06.2016 respectively, therefore, they are entitled to avail the benefit of
annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2020, 01.07.2022 and
01.07.2016 respectively. 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 Government Advocate 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 petitioners have made out their case.
6. Since, petitioners retired long back and are claiming long standing
claim, therefore, as per the judgement of Apex Court in the case of
Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal
Corporation, AIR Online 2022 SC 735, it is clarified that petitioners
shall be entitled to arrears with interest only for three years prior to the date
of filing of the Writ Petition (if in the present case it applies).
7. Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of
annual increment, recalculate the benefit of retiral dues, pension and arrears
etc. as per the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Rushibhai (supra)
and issue fresh pension payment orders in favour of the petitioners, if not
already issued, that too within a period of three months from the date of
submission of certified copy of this order.
8. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Van
VANDANA VERMA
2024.05.30
17:53:14 +05'30'
