Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajesh Kumari Bhargava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12596
1 WP-21938-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 24th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 21938 of 2025
BRAJESH KUMARI BHARGAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None present for petitioner.
Shri Vivek Khedkar - Additional Advocate General for State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"7.1. That, the respondent authorities kindly directed to extend the
benefit of one increment to the petitioner on discharging his
regular service up to 30-06-2015.
7.2 That, respondent authorities may kindly be further directed to
make pay fixation and refix petitioner's pension by adding one
increment and also make payment of arrears with the interest of 4
12% p.a.
7.3 Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted to
the petitioner. Costs be awarded."
2 . It is the case of petitioner that petitioner has superannuated on
30.06.2015 and he has not been granted one increment which became due
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12596
2 WP-21938-2025
w.e.f. 01.07.2015.
3. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for State that the case in hand
is duly covered by judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India and another Vs. M. Siddaraj in Miscellaneous Application Diary
No.2400 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023.
4. Heard the learned counsel for State.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Siddaraj (supra) has held as
under:-
"Delay condoned.
We had passed the following interim order dated 06.09.2024, the
operative portion of which reads 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.
(b) 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 case any retired employee has filed any
application for intervention/impleadment in Civil
Appeal No. 3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a
beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension
by including one increment will be payable from the
month in which the application for intervention/
impleadment was filed."
We are inclined to dispose of the present miscellaneous
applications directing that Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12596
3 WP-21938-2025
dated 06.09.2024 will be treated as final directions. We are,
however, of the opinion that Clause (d) of the order dated
06.09.2024 requires modification which shall now read
as under:
"(d) In case 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."
Further, clause (d) will not apply to the retired government
employee who filed a writ petition/original application or an
application for intervention before the Central Administrative
Tribunal/High Courts/this Court after the judgment in "Union of
India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj"1, as in such cases, clause (a) will
apply.
Recording the aforesaid, the miscellaneous applications are
disposed of.
We, further, clarify that in case any excess payment has already
been made, including arrears, such amount paid will not be
recovered.
It will be open to any person aggrieved by non-compliance with
the directions and the clarification of this Court, in the present
order, to approach the concerned authorities in the first instance
and, if required, the Administrative Tribunal or High Court, as per
law.
Pending applications including all intervention/impleadment
applications shall stand disposed of in terms of this order."
6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in the terms and conditions
of the directions given by Supreme Court in the case of M. Siddaraj (supra) .
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Rashid
