Shivaji Rao Mane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1140 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shivaji Rao Mane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 July, 2025

                                                              1                              WP-2727-2025
                              IN        THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                          BEFORE
                                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
                                                     ON THE 4 th OF JULY, 2025
                                                 WRIT PETITION No. 2727 of 2025
                                                    SHIVAJI RAO MANE
                                                          Versus
                                        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Kartik Jaggi - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                   Ms. Shikha Sharma Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

                                                                  ORDER

By way of present petition the letter dated 12.06.2024 Annexure P/1 is put to challenge whereby the representation of the petitioner for restoration of withheld increments for the purpose of pension has been rejected.

2. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was inflicted with punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect on 08.08.2022. The next increment was due to the petitioner on 01.07.2023, therefore, the increment which was payable from 01.07.2023 was withheld

and its affect got over on 30.06.2024. However, the petitioner was retired on 01.07.2024 leading to the position that the increment to the petitioner was never restored and he suffered a loss of one increment in fixation of the pension fixed w.e.f. 01.07.2024.

3. His representation of restoration of increment for the purpose of pension has been rejected vide order Annexure P/1.

2 WP-2727-2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgment of coordinate Bench in W.P. No. 14769/2021 (Lal Chand Shrivas Vs. The State of M.P. and others) whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that once the punishment imposed was withholding increments without cumulative effect, therefore, upon expiry of the punishment period, the increment so stopped is required to be restored for the purpose of pension. The coordinate Bench has held as under:-

"[7]. It is thus clear that the rigour of punishment imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 07.03.2009 was to remain in force from 01.07.2011 till 30.06.2012. However, in the meantime, the petitioner crossed the age of superannuation and stood retired from service w.e.f. 31.03.2012. The petitioner's counsel is correct in submitting that upon his retirement on 31.03.2012, petitioner's retiral dues have been fixed taking into account the salary drawn by the petitioner on the date of retirement. It is his case that on expiry of period of one year on 30.06.2012, the increment lastly stopped was liable to be restored and consequently the retiral dues including the pension of the petitioner is liable to be revised after taking into account the increment which was to be restored on expiry of period of one year on 30.06.2012.

[8]. Admittedly, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect, therefore, upon expiry of period of one year, the increment so stopped was required to be restored. Thus, on expiry of period of one year on 30.06.2012, the rigour of punishment imposed vide order dated, 07.03.2009, stood expired. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to restoration of his increment for purposes of calculation of his pension.

[9]. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that from the record, it is not clear as to whether the petitioner's pension was revised after restoration of the increment or not.

[10]. In view of abovesaid discussion, the claim of the petitioner is accepted, the respondents are directed to re-calculate the petitioner's pension after restoring the increment w.e.f. 30.06.2012 which was stopped pursuant to the order dated 07.03.2009 and re-calculate the petitioner's pension accordingly. If the increment is already restored, no action is required to be taken. However, if it is not so restored, the respondents shall re-calculate the petitioner's pension w.e.f. 30.06.2012 after taking into account the increment which was liable to be restored on account of order

3 WP-2727-2025 dated 07.03.2009."

5. Learned counsel for the State though opposes the petition but could not point out any distinguishing features from the case of Lalchand Shrivas (supra).

6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The petitioner is held entitled to get fixation of pension w.e.f. 01.07.2024 by ignoring the penalty order dated 08.08.2022 Annexure P/2 for the purpose of fixation of pension.

7. Let necessary calculation be carried out and the amount be paid to the petitioner within three months.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE

MISHRA