Harishankar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 16473 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Harishankar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. ... on 31 May, 2024

Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta

Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta

                                                         1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
                                               ON THE 31 st OF MAY, 2024
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 14830 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    HARISHANKAR      SHARMA       S/O      SHRI
                                 LAXMINARAYAN SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 76
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PENSIONER 128, WARD NO.
                                 12,  BRAJNAGAR,     SHUJALPUR      DISTRICT
                                 SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    LAXMINARAYAN PARMAR S/O SHRI SIDDHNATH
                                 SINGH PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: PENSIONER 558, PREM NAGAR
                                 COLONY, WARD NO. 14, SHUJALPUR DIST.
                                 SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI YASH NAGAR, ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
                                 DEPARTMENT BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    COM M IS S ION ER DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC
                                 INSTRUCTIONS BHOPAL DIST. BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    DIVISIONAL  JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY,
                                 ACCOUNTS AND PENSION DIVISION UJJAIN
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SHAJAPUR,
                                 DIST. SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, DIST. SHAJAPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           6.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, DIST. SHAJAPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 31-05-2024
18:34:01
                                                                 2

                           7.    BLOCK      EDUCATION     OFFICER, BLOCK
                                 SHUJALPUR SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI HEMANT SHARMA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                 ORDER

By the instant petition, the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are claiming that although they stood retired on 30.06.2009 and 30.06.2019 respectively

and the annual increment was to be added on 1st of July of that year, but they were not granted the said benefit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the present case has already been settled by the Supreme Court recently in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 (The Director {Admn. and HR KPTCK and Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.) wherein it has been held that benefit of annual

increment which was to be added on 1st of July every year shall be paid to the

employee who got retired on 30th of June of the said year, therefore, the present petitioners are also entitled to get the said benefit.

3. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamni (Supra), this petition is allowed, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added to the petitioner no.1 with effect from 01.07.2009 and petitioner no.2 with effect from 01.07.2019 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue fresh PPO in favour of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this Court.

4. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE ajit