Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramcharan Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9259
1 WP. No. 14532 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 25th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 14532 of 2025
RAMCHARAN JATAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Narwaria - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S.S. Kushwaha - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief (s):-
7.1 That, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly
be allowed.
7.2 The respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of
annual increment to the petitioner w.e.f 01.01.2016 and to
recalculate the benefits of retiral dues and pension etc.
7.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts
and circumstances of the instant case.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner has retired on
31.12.2015, therefore, is entitled for increment which was payable to him w.e.f.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9259
01.01.2016. It is submitted that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order
dated 22.04.2024 passed in the case of Manmohan Sharma Vs. The State of
M.P. and others in WP. No.10440/2024 has directed that if a person has
retired on 30th of June or 31st of December of a year then he is entitled for
grant of benefit of one increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01st of July of
that year or 01st of January of the next year. Accordingly, it is prayed that the
same benefit may be extended to petitioner.
3. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State. It is
submitted that Supreme Court by order dated 20.02.2025 passed in the case of
Union of India and another Vs. M. Siddaraj in Miscellaneous Application
Diary No.2400 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023 has laid down certain
guidelines, therefore, the relief may be granted in the light of directions given
by the Supreme Court.
4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Siddaraj (supra) has held as
under:-
"Delay condoned.
We had passed the following interim order dated
06.09.2024, the operative portion of which reads as under:
"(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be
given effect to in case of third parties from the
date of the judgment, that is, the pension by
taking into account one increment will be
payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced
pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will
not be paid.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9259
(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions
and succeeded, the directions given in the said
judgment will operate as res judicata, and
accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking
one increment would have to be paid.
(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where
the judgment has not attained finality, and
cases where an appeal has been preferred, or if
filed, is entertained by the appellate court.
(d) In case any retired employee has filed any
application for intervention/impleadment in
Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 or any other writ
petition and a beneficial order has been passed,
the enhanced pension by including one
increment will be payable from the month in
which the application for intervention/
impleadment was filed."
We are inclined to dispose of the present miscellaneous
applications directing that Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the
order dated 06.09.2024 will be treated as final directions.
We are, however, of the opinion that Clause (d) of the
order dated 06.09.2024 requires modification which shall
now read as under:
"(d) In case any retired employee filed an
application for intervention/impleadment/writ
petition/original application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this
Court, the enhanced pension by including one
increment will be payable for the period of
three years prior to the month in which the
application for intervention/ impleadment/ writ
petition/ original application was filed."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9259
Further, clause (d) will not apply to the retired
government employee who filed a writ petition/original
application or an application for intervention before the
Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court
after the judgment in "Union of India & Anr. v. M.
Siddaraj"1, as in such cases, clause (a) will apply.
Recording the aforesaid, the miscellaneous applications
are disposed of.
We, further, clarify that in case any excess payment has
already been made, including arrears, such amount paid
will not be recovered.
It will be open to any person aggrieved by non-
compliance with the directions and the clarification of this
Court, in the present order, to approach the concerned
authorities in the first instance and, if required, the
Administrative Tribunal or High Court, as per law.
Pending applications including all
intervention/impleadment applications shall stand
disposed of in terms of this order.
6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in the terms and conditions of
the directions given by Supreme Court in the case of M. Siddaraj (supra).
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
pd
