Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dayaram Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24512
2025:MPHC
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T J A B AL PUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 20th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 16844 of 2025
SMT. PRAMILA BARASKAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
AND
WP/17060/2025, WP/17221/2025, WP/17291/2025, WP/17406/2025, WP/17425/2025,
WP/17760/2025, WP/17914/2025, WP/17951/2025, WP/18267/2025, WP/18332/2025,
WP/18376/2025, WP/18403/2025, WP/16805/2025, WP/16808/2025
Appearance:
Shri Sachindra Kumar Raghuwanshi, Shri Ashish Kumar Mishra,
Shri Jalaj Kumar Dwivedi, Shri Nishant Patel, Shri Vidhya Prasad, Shri
Shid Ulla Baig, Shri Bhole Nath Sharma, Shri Gaurav Maheshwari, Shri
Kundan Lal Prajapati, Shri Rahul Mishra, Shri Ashok Kuma
Kumarr Gupta, Shri
Pradeep Kumar Naveria, Shri Aishwarya Sahu, Shri Bholenath Sharma -
Advocates for petitioner.
Shri B.D. Singh
Singh, Deputy Advocate General with Dr. S.S. Chouhan
Cho
and Shri Anubhav Jain - Government Advocates for respondents/State.
respondents/State
ORDER
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24512
2025:MPHC
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.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon the
judgment of thee 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 annual 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24512
2025:MPHC
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 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
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
entitled to gett the annual increment on the succeeding day of their
retirement 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 res
respect of C.P. Mundinamani (supra)
has clarified 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24512
2025:MPHC
on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period
priorr 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 filed an application for
intervention/imp
intervention/impleadment/writ
leadment/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/
intervention/ impleadment/ writ
petition/ original 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 Tribun
Tribunal
al 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-compli
compliance
ance 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24512
2025:MPHC
@ 7% per annum as directed by the Supreme Court in the case of M.
Siddaraj (supra).
10. Accordingly,
ingly, 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
n 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 six
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
