Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madan Kumar Saxena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10869
1 WP-7962-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 7 th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7962 of 2025
MADAN KUMAR SAXENA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aishwary Sahu - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Lalit Joglekar - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :
"(i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the
respondents to pay annual increment fell due on 01.01.2013 to
the petitioner and further pay arrears thereof to the petitioner
by revision of pension and consequential benefit be extended
in favour of petitioner.
(ii) To direct the respondents to grant benefit of interest on the
said amount of annual increment/arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2013 till
the date of actual payment @ 18% per annum.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper may kindly be passed."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he stood retired on 31.12.2012 and in
the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of The
Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Others vs. C. P. Mundinamani &
Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401, he is entitled to get the
benefit of annual increment fell due on 1st of July/1st of January of every
year with arrears and interest.
3. The aforesaid issue was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10869
2 WP-7962-2025
case of Director (ADMN) and HR KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 401 which has subsequently been modified / clarified
by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.09.2024 passed in
Miscellaneous Application Diary No.2400 of 2024 in Special Leave Petition
(C) No.4722 of 2021 (Union of India and Anr. v. M. Siddaraj), wherein it
has been held thus :
"It is stated that the Review Petition in Diary No. 36418/2024
filed by the Union of India is pending.
The issue raised in the present applications requires
consideration, insofar as the date of applicability of the
judgment dated 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023,
titled "Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P.
Mundinamani and others", to third parties is concerned.
We are informed that a large number of fresh writ petitions
have been filed.
To prevent any further litigation and confusion, by of an
interim order we direct that:
(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 r 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.
This interim order will continue till further orders of this
Court. However, no person who has already received an
enhanced pension including arrears, will be affected by the
directions in (a), (c) and (d).
Re-list in the week commencing 04.11.2024."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10869
3 WP-7962-2025
4. The case of petitioner is squarely covered by the orders passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M. Siddaraj (supra) and C.P.
Mundinamani (supra).
5. In view whereof, this petition is disposed off in terms of the
clarification issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated
06.09.2024 in the case of M. Siddaraj (supra) and in C.P. Mundinamani
(supra). The respondents-authorities concerned are directed to examine the
case of petitioner in terms of orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
these cases and extend the benefits, if any, within a period of 90 days from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case if petitioner is not
found entitled for grant of any benefit, then speaking order be passed and the
same be communicated to the petitioner within aforesaid period.
6. In above terms, the petition stands disposed off finally. No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
