Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2283
1 WP-32620-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 32620 of 2024
ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Katare, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.M.Patel, Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may
kindly be allowed;
(ii) That, the respondent may kindly be directed to grant the
benefit of additional increment of 20% in basic pension from
02.09.2016 on entering the age of 80 years and additional
increment of 30% in basic pension on entering the age of 85 years
i.e. from 02.09.2021 and refixation of pension be done
accordingly. The arrears be paid thereof along with interest @7%
p.a.
(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2283
2 WP-32620-2024
this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the
petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner"
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner has superannuated from the
post of Upper Division Teacher on 30.09.1997. His date of birth is
02.09.1937. The State has issued circular dated 03.08.2009 (Annexure P-2)
for grant of additional increment of 20% in basic pension of retired
employee at the age of 80-85 years and additional increment of 30% in basic
pension of retired employee at the age of 85-90 years. Petitioner entered into
80th years of age on 02.09.2016 and 85 years of age on 02.09.2021 and
became entitled for additional increment in basic pension, but the
respondents are not deciding his case for additional increments. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. A limited prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the said controversy has been decided by coordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Om Prakash Saxena Vs. State of M.P. and others [W.P. No.
7428/2022, decided on 02.01.2023] and it has been vide order dated
19.06.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No.745/2023 (State of M.P. and others
Vs. Om Prakash Saxena) and also vide order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the
Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.2414/2024 (State of M.P. and others Vs. Om
Prakash Saxena). The petitioner is ready to prefer a fresh representation
before respondents authorities and if they may be directed to consider and
decide the said representation within a timebound manner in the light of
aforesaid judgment, then grievance of the petitioner will be redressed.
5. Learned counsel for respondents/State has no objection to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2283
3 WP-32620-2024
innocuous prayer made by the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions, facts and circumstances of the case
as well as looking to the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the present
petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to prefer a fresh
detailed representation along with necessary documents and certified copy of
this order before the respondents/competent authorities within 15 days from
today and in turn, the said respondents are directed to dwell upon the same
and decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a self-contained
speaking order in the light of the aforesaid judgments within a period of two
months thereafter in accordance with law. The final outcome of the decision
be communicated to the petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
