Madhya Pradesh High Court
Banwari Lal Nigam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7245
1 WP-23377-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 27th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 23377 of 2024
BANWARI LAL NIGAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Maroof Ullah Sidddiqui - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G. K. Agrawal - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Considered I.A.No.2729/2025, an application for amendment in the
cause title.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that he has filed an
application for amendment in the light of the direction given by this Court.
3. This Court had never issued any direction to petitioner to amend the
respondents.
4. On 25/02/2025, a statement made by counsel for petitioner that
since, he had made wrong authorities as respondents, therefore, he is facing
the difficulty in getting the order executed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.
6. This Court by order dated 14/08/2024 passed in this case had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7245
2 WP-23377-2024
allowed the petition filed by petitioner. Later on, petitioner found that he has
impleaded wrong party as a result he is unable to execute the same.
7. Accordingly, I.A.No.12909/2024 was filed for modification of
order.
8. Since, there was no error apparent on the face of record and the
mistake was committed by petitioner himself, therefore, this Court by
adopting a sympathetic view decided to recall the order dated 14/08/2024 so
that petitioner may move necessary application.
9. Shockingly, petitioner instead of appreciating the another
opportunity granted to him to correct his own mistake, is trying to run away
from his responsibility by putting a blame on the Court that it was this Court
who had directed the petitioner to amend the writ petition.
10. Be that whatever it may be.
11. For the attitude of counsel for petitioner, petitioner cannot be made
to suffer. Accordingly, without appreciating the reasons submitted by
counsel for petitioner in the open Court, I.A.No.2729/2025 is allowed.
12. Let necessary amendment be carried out by tomorrow i.e.
28/03/2025.
13. Also heard on merits.
14. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"7.1. Directing the respondents to grant the benefit of the annual
increment and to release the increment due to the petitioner w.e.f.
01.07.2020.
7.2. Directing the respondents to Re-fix the pension by issuing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7245
3 WP-23377-2024
fresh PPO and pay the differential amount of pension and other
arrears such as Gratuity and Leave Encashment with interest.
7.3. The petitioners are entitled to interest over the aforesaid
arrears of pension @ 6% p.a. from the date the arrears became due
till their payment.
7.4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court finds appropriate in
the matter may kindly be granted."
15. It is the case of petitioner that he has retired on 30/06/2020, but he
has not been given the increment which became due from 01/07/2020. The
aforesaid question is no more res integra.
16. The Supreme Court by order dated 20/02/2025 passed 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7245
4 WP-23377-2024
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7245
5 WP-23377-2024
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.
17. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in the terms and
conditions of order dated 20/02/2025 passed by the Supreme Court in the
case of M. Siddaraj (supra) .
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
PjS/-
