Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambabu Dwivedi 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. 14984 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAMBABU DWIVEDI S/O LATE SHRI SHRIRAM DUBEY,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED RKT
VIDYA NIKETAN JOSHI NAGAR ETAWAH ROAD BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANIL SARASWAT - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
HEADQUARTERS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE POLICE (RADIO),
ZONE GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DIRECTOR OF TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS NEW
RAJASWA BHAWAN JHANSI ROAD, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.S. TOMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. The instant petition has been preferred by petitioner, under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents
for not extending the benefit of increment. Petitioner, who retired on
30.06.2008, was denied increment on the pretext that he is 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 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 30.06.2008, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual
increment which was to be added on 01.07.2008. 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. 01.07.2008 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.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
vpn
