Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kusum Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 May, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 31 st OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 15340 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SMT. KUSUM SONI W/O KAILAASH CHANDRA SONI,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
ASSISTANT TEACHER R/O 23 WARD NO. 30 LOK
MANIYA TILAK WARD JYOTI NAGAR KHANDWA
DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE
D E P A R T M E N T MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. C O M M I S S I O N E R PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER KHANDWA
DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT PENSION O F F I C E R KHANDWA
DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER KHANDWA
DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DILIP SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: POONAM
MANEKAR
Signing time: 6/3/2024
12:04:43 PM
2
following:
ORDER
The issue on the present petition is with regard to entitlement of annual
increment to the employee on the event of retirement.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of the Director (Admn. and
HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others (Civil Appeal
No.4349/2023), reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 401 it is held thus :-
"21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the
appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ
petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering
their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with
good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with
the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the
circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
The same has been reiterated in the case of Madhya Pradesh Power
Transmission Com. Ltd. and another vs. S.R. Ramchandran and others
(SLP (C) No.8219/2020) and the Supreme Court has held thus :-
" M r . Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the appellant's seeks to distinguish this
authority by pointing out that Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka
Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997 is different
from Rule 10 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules,2008 as also Rule 9 of the
Madhya Pradesh (Pay Revision) Rules, 2009 and Rule 10 of
Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules,2008.
We have gone through these rules and in our opinion,
though these Rules are differently phrased, they have the same
import, on the strength of which the Co-ordinate Bench had
dismissed the petition of the employer. In these circumstances, we
are not inclined to interfere with the orders assailed in this set of
petitions and these petitions shall stand dismissed."
Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgments passed by the
Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) and S.R.
Ramchandran (supra), this petition is allowed, directing the respondents to
grant the benefit of annual increment which is to be added with effect from
01.07.2017 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue
fresh PPO in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the
date of submitting copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
pnm
