Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ajeet Singh on 14 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38538
1 RP-1351-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 14th OF AUGUST, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 1351 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
AJEET SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate for the State.
None for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This review petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 05.11.2024
passed by Hon'ble Coordinate Division Bench in W.P. No.14069/2024 ( Shiv
Kumar Markam and Another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others )
and other connected Writ Petitions, whereby Hon'ble Division Bench was in
seisin with the matter pertaining to grant of annual increment to those
employees who attained age of superannuation of 30th June/31st December
and their normal date of next increment is either 1st July or 1s t January, as
the case may be.
Earlier the view of the Court was that such increment is admissible as
is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director (ADMN) and
HR KPTCL Vs. C.P. Mundinamani, 2023 SCC OnLine 401 , wherein it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38538
2 RP-1351-2025
held that the entitlement to receive annual increment crystallises when the
Government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct
and becomes payable on the succeeding day. The Supreme Court further held
that annual increment earned on the last day of service for rendering good
service preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour
and efficiency was liable to be paid to the employees.
Thereafter, Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Another Vs.
M. Siddaraj decided in Miscellaneous Application (Diary) No.2400/2024 in
Special Leave Petition (C) No.4722/2021 vide order dated 06.09.2024
clarified that the arrears will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced
pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid.
The judgement of Hon'ble Division Bench is assailed on two grounds,
namely, M. Siddaraj does not conceive of payment of interest on the arrears
of dues accruing on account of payment of increment as per the entitlement
of an employee and, secondly, that payment of interest will put huge burden
on the shoulders of the State.
After hearing Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate
for the State we are of the opinion that it is true that there is no direction of
payment of interest in the case of M. Siddaraj (supra) but it is also true that
once judgment of Supreme Court was delivered and there was already an
existing/prevailing judgment in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) , then State
was required to be cautious and alert to dispense with the benefits of
payment of increment as per the entitlement of a government servant within
the prescribed period of time as the State claims itself to be a model
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38538
3 RP-1351-2025
employer.
If State failed to pay the dues of the concerned employee despite the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then it cannot be said that payment
of interest will put the State to a financial inconvenience. In fact as a model
employer State was required to and also expected to pay the dues
immediately. State has already saved a huge burden by prescribing a cut-off
date as has been done by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Siddaraj (supra) ,
therefore, despite making substantial saving if they failed to pay the dues in
time, then interest is a natural corollary, therefore, that cannot be faulted in
while exercising review jurisdiction.
Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE JUDGE
MTK
