Mahesh Prasad Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 16389 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mahesh Prasad Tiwari 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. 14225 of 2024

                         BETWEEN:-
                         MAHESH PRASAD TIWARI S/O SHRI RAM SEWAK
                         TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                         RETIRED SOIL CONSERVATION SURVEY OFFICER LIG-
                         A/40  HOUSING   BOARD    COLONY,   NEAR    ITI,
                         NARMADAPURAM,     DISTIRICT   NARMADAPURAM
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI ASHISH SHROTI - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                               PRINCIPAL   SECRETARY    MANTRALAYA,
                               VALLABH   BHAWAN,   BHOPAL  (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         2.    DEPUTY SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
                               VALLABH   BHAWAN,   BHOPAL  (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         3.    COMMISSIONER OF PENSION, DIRECTORATE OF
                               TREASURY & ACCO BHOPAL 26 KISAN BHAWAN
                               MANDI BOARD PARISAR JAIL ROAD ARERA
                               HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    DIRECTOR   BHOPAL ARERA HILLS           BHOPAL
                               (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
                         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 01.07.2020 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