Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyam Sundar Rajoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8123
2025:MPHC
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 20th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 26477 of 2024
SHYAM SUNDAR RAJORIYA & OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WP/38167/2024, WP/39798/2024, WP/1293/2025, WP/2456/2025,
WP/4190/2025, WP/4241/2025, WP/4248/2025, WP/4420/2025, WP/4858/2025,
WP/4976/2025, WP/4977/2025, WP/4993/2025, WP/5006/2025, WP/5011/2025,
WP/5019/2025, WP/5500/2025, WP/5624/2025, WP/5639/2025, WP/5951/2025,
WP/6061/2025, WP/6068/2025, WP/6202/2025, WP/6285/2025, WP/6398/2025
Appearance:
Shri Rajneesh Gupta, Shri Ashish Vishwakarma, Shri Akash
Choudhury, Shri Awadesh Kumar Singh, Shri Shakti Kumar Soni, Shri
Chandrika Prasad Dwivedi, Shri Shivendra Singh, Shri Pradeep Kumar
Sharma, Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Shri Bhupendra Kumar Mishra, Shri
Mohan Lal Sharma,
arma, Shri Kishor Roy, Shri Sachindra Kumar
Raghuwanshi, Shri Jitendra Arya, Shri Manoj Kumar Rajak, Shri Anshul
Tiwari and Shri Atul Kumar Rai - Advocates for petitioners.
Shri Anubhav Jain, Government Advocate for respondents/State
respondents/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time: 20-02-
2025 18:42:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8123
2025:MPHC
2
ORDER
Per: Suresh Kumar Kait,
Kait Chief Justice
In all these writ petitions, a common question of fact and law is
involved and therefore, they are heard analogously and disposed of by
this common order.
2. A common grievance of the petitioners in this batch of writ
petitions is with regard to grant of annual increment which became due
on completion of one year's service before attaining the age of
superannuation. In some of the cases, the petitioners or the employees
whose widows/legal heirs have approached this Court, have retired from
service on 30th June and while in others, they have retired on 31st
December of the year of their superannuation. It is their case that they
have not been extended the benefit of increment which otherwise became
due to them on 1st July of the same year or 1st January of the next year, as
the case may be. Hence, these petitions have been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon the
judgment of thee Supreme Court in the case of Director (ADMN) and
HR KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani,
Mundinamani 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401,
401 wherein
it is held that the entitlement to receive annual increment crystallises
when the Government servant completes a 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.
4. Circular dated 15.03.2024 issued by the Finance Department of the
State of Madhya Pradesh has also been referred to, wherein all
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8123
2025:MPHC
departments have been directed to grant annual increment to all the
employees who have retired on 30th June / 31st December with regard to
annual increment that became payable on 1st July or 1st January, as the
case may be. Hence, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to
extend the pensionary benefits
benefit to the petitioners after adding annual
increment from the due date along with arrears and interest thereon
within a stipulated time.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the issue involved in the
present petitions is covered by the said Circular
Circular and the same is being
implemented and the cases are being scrutinized and processed
accordingly.
6. Be that
at as it may, since petitioners/employees superannuated from
service on 30th June or 31st December as the case may be
be, they are
entitled to get the annual increment on the succeeding day of their
retirement i.e. on 1st of July or 1st of January, as the case may be.
7. That this Court following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal
Munic
Corporation, 2022 SCC Online SC 641 had noticed that as there was
delay in approaching the Court, the benefit of arrears was restricted to a
period of three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition.
However, the Supreme Court in respect of C.P. Mundinamani (supra)
has clarified
d by order dated 06.09.2024 in Miscellaneous Application
(Diary) No.2400/2024 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.4722/2021 titled
title
Union of India & Another Vs. M. Siddaraj as under:
"(a). The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in
case of third
d parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the
pension by taking into account one increment will be payable
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8123
2025:MPHC
on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period
prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid.
(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,
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
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."
8. In this view of the matter, in cases where there is a delay by the
petitionerss in approaching the Court, the benefit of arrears shall be
restricted and shall be payable only w.e.f. 01.05.2023 along with interest
@ 7% per annum as directed by the Supreme Court in the case of M.
Siddaraj (supra).
9. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to grant the annual
increment to the petitioners
petitioner which became due to them on 1st of July of
the year of their superannuation or 1st of January of the succeeding year,
as the case may be, with all consequential benefits. Further, it is directed
that the amount accrued in favour of the petitioners on account of annual
increment be paid to them within a period of six weeks in accordance
with the order of the Supreme Court dated 06.09.2024 passed in the case
of M. Siddaraj (supra)
(supra).
10. In view of the foregoing, all these writ petitions are disposed of in
the above terms.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8123
2025:MPHC
(SURESH
SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
KAIT (VIVEK
VIVEK JAIN)
JAIN
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
praveen
