Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Kumar Bhalla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1290
1 WP-648-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 648 of 2025
SATISH KUMAR BHALLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshat Kumar Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.M.Patel, G.A. for State.
ORDER
The instant petition has been preferred by 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 31.12.2014 was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that whether a government
employee retiring on 31st December of a year is entitled to avail the benefit
of increment as fixed on 1st of January 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 January
every year shall be paid to the employee who is going to be retired on 31st
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1290
2 WP-648-2025
December of the said year. It is further submitted that controversy is now no
longer res integra. The petitioner retired on 31.12.2014, therefore, he is
entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on
01.01.2015. 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 respondent/State could not dispute the
passing of said order. However, he submits that it appears that SLP arising
out of judgment of Division Bench of this Court is still pending consideration
before the Supreme Court.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
5. 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 [W.A. No.645/2020] has been considered in
favour of employee who is retiring on 31st December 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 behaviour and efficiency then it
appears that petitioner has made out his case.
6. Since, the petitioner retired on 31.12.2014 and is claiming
his outstanding claim, therefore, as per the judgment of Apex Court in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1290
3 WP-648-2025
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).
7. 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.
8. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
