Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohanlal Parashar vs Shri M.R. Baghel on 29 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19782
1 CONC-4218-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 29th OF JULY, 2025
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 4218 of 2025
MOHANLAL PARASHAR
Versus
SHRI M.R. BAGHEL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Adarsh Kumar Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner.
ORDER
The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance
of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in W.P. No.19438/2024 whereby a
direction was given to the respondents in terms of para 4, which reads as
under:-
"4. Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the
judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of C.P.
Mundinamni (Supra), this petition is allowed, directing the
respondents to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to
be added with effect from 1st January of the said year when the
petitioner stood retired and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues
and pension and issue fresh Pension Payment Order (PPO) in
favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the
date of submitting copy of this order. It is made clear that
petitioner shall be entitled for the interest @ 6% per annum only
from the date of approaching this Court through this petition
(i.e.12.07.2024) to claim the aforesaid benefit."
2. The petitioner revisited this Court by filing contempt petition (civil)
No.260/2025 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 10.02.2025 with
a direction that the order passed by the Writ Court shall be complied with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19782
2 CONC-4218-2025
within the period as mentioned in the order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the order dated
18.10.2024 has been passed granting increment w.e.f. 01.01.2011 on notional
basis but consequential refixation has not been done pursuant to sanction of
increment vide order dated 01.01.2011. He further submits that though the
Divisional Forest Officer has written letter dated 29.10.2024 to the District
Pension Officer, Dewas and the petitioner has also represented before him on
10.02.2025 but no action has been taken by the concerned officer.
4. On perusal of the record of the contempt petition, it is apparent that
annexure A-6 is the document issued by District Pension Officer, Dewas to
the petitioner which is a letter written on 17.03.2025 thereby informing the
petitioner that a review petition has been proceeded with against the order
passed in W.P. No.19438/2024. In view of the above proceeding, it has been
mentioned in the letter that further proceedings shall be carried out in
accordance with the outcome of the said case. It is, thus, seen that the District
Pension Officer i.e. respondent No.3 is the authority who has to take
consequential action pursuant to order granting increment on notional basis
w.e.f. 01.01.2011. The respondent No.3 has to bear in mind that it is the State
who has to grant increment to the petitioner which has duly been granted
without any demur i.e. it is for the State to get the order reviewed if at all it is
intended to be done. The District Pension Officer is only an authority who
has to take consequential action pursuant to grant of notional increment and
as such, this excuse as per annexure A-6 is not countenanced.
5. Consequentially, the contempt petition is disposed of with the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19782
3 CONC-4218-2025
following directions:-
(i) The petitioner shall communicate the order being passed today
along with the order passed in writ petition and the order granting increment
w.e.f. 01.01.2011 (annexure A-3) to the respondent No.3/District Pension
Officer, Dewas.
(ii) The District Pension Officer shall pass consequential order of
refixation of pension within a period of 3 weeks from the date of the orders
as mentioned in the direction No.1 .
(ii) In case, respondent No.3/District Pension Officer fails to comply
with the order within a period of three weeks, the petitioner shall be at liberty
to revisit this Court, and the cost and consequences of such litigation shall be
on the respondent No.3.
6. With the aforesaid direction, present contempt petition stands disposed
of.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
N.R.
