Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakhpati Prasad Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3605
1 WP-4547-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4547 of 2025
LAKHPATI PRASAD MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Sundaram - Government Advocate for the respondents- State on
advance copy.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction
of the respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. The
petitioner retired on 30.06.2007, was denied increment on the pretext
that he is not entitled.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3605
2 WP-4547-2025
No.2471/2023 dated 11.04.2023, wherein after considering the
judgments of different High Courts 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 petitioner was retired
on 30.06.2007, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual
increment which was to be added on 01.07.2007. 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 petitioner 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3605
3 WP-4547-2025
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 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 petitioner was retired on 30.06.2007 and is claiming
his 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). It is also
clarified that this order shall be applicable in case petitioner retire
immediately one day before the date of grant of increment.
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 petitioner and thereafter, relief shall be granted.
10. It is hereby clarified that this order is applicable only in case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3605
4 WP-4547-2025
where petitioner is retired just one day prior to the date of
implementation of increment.
11. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Durgekar
