Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omkar Nath Upadhyaya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2246
1 WP-17541-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 17541 of 2020
OMKAR NATH UPADHYAYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pratip Visoriya - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice
1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioners, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of
the respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioners
retired on 30.6.2004 and 30.06.2011 respectively were denied increment on
the pretext that they are not entitled.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that whether a
government employee retiring on 30th June of a year is entitled to avail the
benefit of increment as fixed on 1st July is being decided by the Supreme
Court recently in the case of the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors.
vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 dated
11.04.2023, wherein after considering the judgments of different High Courts
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2246
2 WP-17541-2020
including the Madhya Pradesh High Court it has been held that benefit of
annual increment which is to be added on 1st of July every year shall be paid
to the employee who is going to be retired on 30th June of the said year. It is
further submitted that controversy is now no longer res integra. The
petitioners retired on 30.06.2004 and 30.06.2011 therefore, they are entitled
to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on
01.07.2004 and 01.07.2011. The said aspect has also been dealt with by the
Full Bench of this Court also in the case of Ratanlal Rathore Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and others (Writ Petition No.4118 of 2020) decided on
28.07.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that earlier an
SLP (Civil) No.8119/2020 was preferred by the State challenging the orders
passed in W.P.No.298/2020 and W.A.No.319/2020 but the same has been
dismissed on 11-07-2023.
4. An SLP arising out of judgment of Division Bench of this Court is
still pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
5 . Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents
appended thereto.
6. After going through the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in
the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), in para 6.3 and 6.7 it appears that the
view of M.P. High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria and ors.
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh has been considered in favour of employee
who is retiring on 30th June of that year. Once the Apex Court as well as
Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ratanlal Rathore (supra) has decided
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2246
3 WP-17541-2020
the controversy and found the employee entitled for the benefit of approval
of entitlement to receive increment while rendering the services over a year
with good behavior and efficiency then it appears that petitioner has made
out his case.
7. Since, the petitioners retired on 30.06.2004 and 30.06.2011 and are
claiming their outstanding claim, therefore, as per the judgment of Apex
Court in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal
Corporation, AIR Online 2022 SC 735 , it is clarified that petitioner shall be
entitled to arrears with interest only for three years prior to the date of filing
of the Writ Petition (if in the present case, it applies).
8. Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual
increment, recalculate the benefit of retiral dues, pension and arrears etc. as
per the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rushibhai (supra) and issue
fresh pension payment orders in favour of the petitioner, if not already
issued, that too within a period of three months from the date of submission
of certified copy of this order.
9. Respondents are at liberty to consider the suitability/ eligibility of
the petitioners and thereafter, relief shall be granted.
10. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
SKM
