Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kedar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1104
1 WP-98-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 21 st OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 98 of 2025
KEDAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Romesh Pratap Singh Kaurav- learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri D.S. Kushwah- learned Additional Advocate General for respondent-State.
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
30.06.2024, 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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1104
2 WP-98-2025
The petitioner retired on 30.06.2024, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit
of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2024. 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 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 retired on 30.06.2024 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1104
3 WP-98-2025
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
retires 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 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
Prachi
