Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vir Singh Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 May, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 31 st OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 15479 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. VIR SINGH PARIHAR S/O SHRI HUKUM SINGH
PARIHAR, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O SHIKSHAK COLONY
BUGURG ROAD NEAR NURSERY WARD NO. 13
DABRA DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GULAB SINGH CHANDEL S/O SHRI J.S. CHANDEL,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
EMPLOYEE R/O BEHIND THAKUR BABA MANDIR
, GALI NO.2 WARD NO.21 DABRA DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHRI RAM SHARMA S/O SHRI HARI VALLABH
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O MAHAVEER PURA,
DABRA DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RAM GOPAL CHOURASIA S/O SHRI MOTI LAL
CHOURASIA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O NEAR
STATE BANK OF INDIA BILAUA, ANTARI
DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PHOOL SINGH JATAV S/O SHRI LAKKHU RAM
JATAV, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O 162-K AMBEDKAR
COLONY DABRA DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SATENDRA SINGH RAWAT - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
SCHOOL EDUCATION, VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 31-05-2024
03:40:09 PM
2
2. C O M M I S S I O N E R PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
GAUTAM NAGAR SECTOR B BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER GWALIOR
DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JOINT DIRECTOR TREASUR , AUDIT AND
PEN S ION MOTI MAHAL GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER GORAKHI DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.S. TOMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
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
30.06.2018, 30.06.2021, 30.06.2013, 30.06.2022 and 30.06.2022 respectively,
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 petitioners stood
retired on 30.06.2018, 30.06.2021, 30.06.2013, 30.06.2022 and 30.06.2022
respectively, therefore, they are entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment
which was to be added on 01.07.2018, 01.07.2021, 01.07.2013, 01.07.2022 and
01.07.2022. 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, the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual
increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2018, 01.07.2021, 01.07.2013,
01.07.2022 and 01.07.2022 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and
pension etc. and and are also directed to refix the pay of the petitioners and
issue fresh pension payment order 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.
7. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
8. Certified copy as per Rules.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
vpn
