Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Basanti Bist vs The General Manager on 31 July, 2025
1 WP-29225-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 31st OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 29225 of 2021
SMT.BASANTI BIST
Versus
THE GENERAL MANAGER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Parag Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ashish Agrawal- Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The matter relates to the claim of the petitioner for grant of increment
payable w.e.f. 01.07.2013 as he retired on 30.06.2013 and completed
requisite period of service to earn the next increment.
2. The office has raised objection as to maintainability of the writ
petition on the ground that since the petitioner is working at Gray Iron
Foundry which is a Production Unit under Ministry of Defence, Government
of India, therefore, the petitioner ought to approach the Central
Administrative Tribunal.
3. The similar objection was raised before a coordinate Bench of this
Court earlier by a retired employee who was working in am Production Unit
under Ministry of Defence, and it was held by the coordinate Bench in W.P.
No. 7009/2021 that petition is pending since a long time and the legal issue
has been settled. Therefore, directing the petitioners to approach the Central
Administrative Tribunal will be a rutile exercise once the issue is settled.
2 WP-29225-2021
4. It is not in dispute that the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Director, (Administration and Human
Resources) KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 401 and
subsequently, clarified in the case of M.Siddaraj (Civil Appeal No.
3933/2023). Considering the aforesaid judgment, recently the Division
Bench of this Court has passed the following order in W.P. no. 16844/2025.
"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 31
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 1 July of the same year or 1" 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 the Supreme Court in the case of Director (ADMN) and
IHR KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 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
departments have been directed to grant annual increment to all
the employees who have retired on 30th June/31" 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 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 and the same is being
3 WP-29225-2021
implemented and the cases are being scrutinized and processed
accordingly.
6. Be that as if may, since petitioners/employees superannuated from
service on 30th June or 31 December as the case may be, they are
entitled to get the annual increment on the succeeding day of their
retirement le. on 1" of July or 1" 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
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 by order dated 06.09.2024 as further modified vide order
dated 20.02.2025 in Miscellaneous Application (Diary) No.2400/2024 in
Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 titled 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 parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension
by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after
01.05.2023 Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023
will not be paid the 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, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, or
if filed, is entertained by the appellate court.
(d) In cave any retired employee filed an application for
intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application before
the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court, the
enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable for
the period of three years prior to the month in which the
application for intervention/ impleadment/ writ petition/ original
application was filed."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the clause (d) will not apply to
the retired Government employees who filed the petition / original
application before the High Court or Tribunal after the judgment passed
in case of Union of India and another V/s M. Siddaraj (passed on
19.05.2023 in Civil Appeal No.3933/2023) and in such cases clause (a)
will apply. It has also been held that it will be open to any person
aggrieved by non-compliance of the aforesaid directions to approach the
concerned authorities in the first instance and if required, the
administrative Tribunal or the High Court as per law. The Government
has been directed to examine the cases of the petitioner in terms of the
aforesaid order passed on 20.02.2025 and comply with the same
expeditiously.
9. In this view of the matter, in these cases as there is a delay by the
4 WP-29225-2021
petitioners 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. Siddara (supra).
10. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to grant the annual
increment to the petitioners which became due to them on 1st of July of
the year of their superannuation or Ist of January of the succeeding year,
as the case may be, with all consequential benefits in the above manner.
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
20.02.2025 passed in the case of M. Siddaraj (supra).
11. In view of the foregoing, all these writ petitions are disposed of in
the above terms."
5. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is also disposed of in similar
terms. The aforesaid judgment will apply to the case of the petitioner also
mutatis mutandis. The petitioner shall be entitled to arrears of salary from a
date three years prior to filing of this petition.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
