Gangaram Solanki vs M.P. Power Transmission Company ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 16294 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gangaram Solanki vs M.P. Power Transmission Company ... 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. 15239 of 2024

BETWEEN:-
1.    GANGARAM SOLANKI S/O SHRI CHANGULIYA
      RAM SOLANKI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: RETIRED FROM THE POST OF
      SENIOR TESTING SUPERVISOR R/O 220 K.V. SUB
      STATION COLONY DEVPUR MAFI SABALGARH,
      DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    PREM KUMAR SWARNKAR S/O LATE SHRI
      KANHAIYA LAL, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: RET. ASSISTANT ENG. 147
      CHANDNI CHOWK SABALGARH (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                              .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    M.P. POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED
      THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHAKTI
      BHAWAN , JALABLPUR, DISTRICT GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER T AND C CIRCLE
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI M.S. JADON - GOVT. ADVOCATE )

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e 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, who retired on 30.06.2023 and petitioner No.2 who retired on 31.12.2023 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/31st of December of a year is entitled to avail the benefit of increment as fixed on 1st of July/1st of January 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/1st of January every year shall be paid to the employee who is going to be retired on 30th June/31st of December of the year. It is further submitted that controversy is now no longer res integra. The petitioner No.1 stood retired on 30.06.2023 and petitioner No.2 stood retired on 31.12.2023, therefore, they are entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2023 and 01.01.2024.

3 . Learned counsel for respondent/State has no objection to the prayer so made by counsel for the petitioner.

4 . Heard learned 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/31st December of that year. Once the Apex Court

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 in the salary of petitioner No.1 w.e.f. 01.07.2023 and in the light of the Circular dated 15.03.2024 grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added in the salary of petitioner No.2 w.e.f. 01.01.2024 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 Van

VANDANA VERMA 2024.05.31 11:14:07 +05'30'