The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shivram Nagraj
2025 Latest Caselaw 2338 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shivram Nagraj on 31 July, 2025

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20069




                                                              1                                WA-1694-2024
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                           &
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                                      ON THE 31st OF JULY, 2025
                                                  WRIT APPEAL No. 1694 of 2024
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                                                        Versus
                                                   SHIVRAM NAGRAJ
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.
                                   Shri Lokendra Gangarekar, learned counsel for the respondent.

                                                                  ORDER

Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla

The present petition is filed under section 2(1) of the MP Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by Learned Single Judge in WP No.15564/2020, whereby, the petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to be paid

benefit of one annual increment which fall due on 01.07.2012 and also to revise his retiral dues.

Learned counsel for the appellant/state submits that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of The Director (Admn. and H.R.) KPTCL & others V/s. C.P. Mundinamani & others (Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 recently

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20069

2 WA-1694-2024 decided on 11.4.2023) without considering the reply filed by the appellant/state. It is argued that as per the stand of the appellant, the petitioner had already completed the age of superannuation on 30.04.2012 and the petitioner did not work upto 30.06.2012 and therefore, no increment was due on 01.07.2012 to him. He has drawn the attention of this court to the pleadings of the reply in para 3,4,5.

Learned counsel for the respondent supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that the learned Single Judge has not considered the contention of the appellant/respondent raised in

para no.3,4 and 5 of the reply.

In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge to decide the petition afresh after considering the reply and contention of the appellant/state.

Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of.

                              (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)                              (PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
                                      JUDGE                                             JUDGE
                           Sourabh