Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sushri Sarika Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13733
2025:MPHC
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 19th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 37195 of 2024
AJAY KUMAR KESHAV PRASAD & OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
AND
WP/37998/2024, WP/39844/2024, WP/39846/2024, WP/39847/2024, WP/39848/2024,
WP/39850/2024, WP/4987/2025, WP/6282/2025, WP/6288/2025, WP/6785/2025,
WP/6786/2025, WP/7132/2025, WP/7344/2025, WP/7346/2025, WP/7445/2025,
WP/7578/2025, WP/7595/2025, WP/7596/2025, WP/7599/2025, WP/7602/2025,
WP/7626/2025, WP/7809/2025, WP/7813/2025, WP/7822/2025, WP/7844/2025,
WP/7998/2025, WP/8033/2025, WP/8159/2025, WP/8221/2025,
WP/8221/2025, WP/8402/2025,
WP/8406/2025, WP/8493/2025, WP/8585/2025, WP/8602/2025, WP/8858/2025,
WP/8860/2025, WP/8863/2025, WP/8865/2025, WP/8867/2025, WP/8912/2025,
WP/8935/2025, WP/9018/2025, WP/9064/2025, WP/9111/2025, WP/9127/2025,
WP/9260/2025, WP/9364/2025,
WP/9364/2025, WP/9377/2025, WP/9395/2025, WP/9465/2025,
WP/9508/2025, WP/9569/2025, WP/9887/2025
Appearance:
Shri Saurabh Kumar Tiwari, Shri Rajesh Kumar, Shri Ashish
Vishwakarma, Shri Ruth Vijay Shukla, Shri Mahesh Prasad Shukla, Shri
Rajneesh Gupta, Shri Rajesh
Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Shri Vineeta Patel, Shri
Ajeet Kumar Singh, Shri Sachindra Kumar Raghuwanshi, Shri Amit
Kumar Chaturvedi, Shri Sudeep Singh Saini, Shri Shrikant Shrivastava,
Shri Shravan Kumar Rao, Shri Himanshu Mishra, Shri Kunal Thakre,
Shri Rakesh Singh, Shri Shid Ulla Baig, Shri Harish Chandra Singh, Shri
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time: 20-03-
2025 14:29:43
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13733
2025:MPHC
2
Anjana Kuraria, Shri Rajendra Kushwaha, Shri Alok Tiwari, Shri Rizwan
Khan, Shri Devraj Vishwakarma,
Vishwakarma, Shri Atul Singh, Shri Vijay Kumar
Shukla, Shri Anshul Tiwari, Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi, Shri Nitesh
Kumar Jain, Shri Dhirendra Kumar Khare, Shri Vidya Prasad, Shri
Brijesh Kumar Choubey, Shri Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Shri Rajesh
Kumar Pandey, Shri
ri Manoj Kumar Rajak and Shri Shankar Dayal
Mishra.
Shri B.D. Singh,
Singh Deputy Advocate General with Dr. S.S. Cho
Chouhan,
Government Advocate and Shri Anubhav Jain, Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Suresh Kumar Kait,
Kait Chief Justice
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 31st
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 1st July of the same year or 1st January of the next year, as
the case may be. Hence, these petitions have been filed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13733
2025:MPHC
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Director (ADMN) and
HR KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani,
Mundinamani 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401,
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 aannual
nnual 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 / 31st 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
benefit to the petitioners after adding annual
increment from the
he 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
implemented and the cases are being scrutinized and processed
accordingly.
6. Be that
at as it may, since petitioners/employees superannuated from
service on 30th June or 31st December as the case may be,
be they are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13733
2025:MPHC
entitled to get the annual increment on the succeeding day of their
retirement
tirement i.e. on 1st of July or 1st 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 clarifiedd 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.
(b) For persons
rsons 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 tthe
he 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 filed an application for
intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application
before
efore 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13733
2025:MPHC
which the application for intervention/ impleadment/ writ
petition/ original
al 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
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
comply with the same
expeditiously.
9. In this view of the matter, in these cases as there is a delay by the
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.
Siddaraj (supra).
10. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to grant the annual
increment to the petitioners
petitioner which became due to them on 1st of July of
the year of their superannuation or 1st of January of the succeeding year,
as the case may be, with all consequential benefits in the above manner.
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
o six
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13733
2025:MPHC
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.
(SURESH
SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
KAIT (VIVEK
VIVEK JAIN)
JAIN
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
praveen
