Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambhajan Shakya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25644
1 WP-36596-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 36596 of 2025
RAMBHAJAN SHAKYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Mishra- Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
1. The instant petition has been preferred by petitioner, under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the
respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. Petitioner, who
retired on 30.06.2017, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not
entitled.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that whether a government
employee retiring on 30th June of a year is entitled to avail the benefit of
increment as fixed on 1st of July is being decided by the Supreme Court
recently in the case of the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P.
Mundinamani & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 dated 11.04.2023,
wherein after considering the judgments of different High Courts including
the Madhya Pradesh High Court it has been held that benefit of annual
increment which is to be added on 1st of July every year shall be paid to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25644
2 WP-36596-2025
employee who is going to be retired on 30th June of the said year. It is
further submitted that controversy is now no longer res integra . The present
petitioner stood retired on 30th June, 2017, therefore, he is entitled to avail
the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2017. The
said aspect has also been dealt with by the Full Bench of this Court also in
the case of Ratanlal Rathore Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
(Writ Petition No.4118 of 2020) decided on 28.07.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that earlier an
SLP (Civil) No.8119/2020 was preferred by the respondents challenging the
orders passed in W.P.No.298/2020 and W.A.No.319/2020 but the same has
been dismissed on 11-07- 2023.
4. Learned counsel for respondent/State could not dispute the passing
of said order. However, he submits that it appears that SLP arising out of
judgment of Division Bench of this Court is still pending consideration
before the Supreme Court.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
6. After going through the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in
the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), in para 6.3 and 6.7 it appears that the
view of M.P. High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria and ors.
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh has been considered in favour of employee who
is retiring on 30th June of that year. Once the Apex Court as well as Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Ratanlal Rathore (supra) has decided the
controversy and found the employee entitled for the benefit of approval of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25644
3 WP-36596-2025
entitlement to receive increment while rendering the services over a year
with good behaviour and efficiency then it appears that petitioner has made
out his case.
7. Since, petitioner retired in the year 2017 and is claiming his
outstanding claim, therefore, as per the judgment of Apex Court in the case
of Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, AIR
Online 2022 SC 735, it is clarified that petitioner shall be entitled to arrears
with interest only for three years prior to the date of filing of the Writ
Petition (if in the present case it applies).
8. Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of
annual increment, recalculate the benefit of retiral dues, pension and arrears
etc. as per the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rushibhai (supra) and
issue fresh pension payment orders in favour of the petitioner, if not already
issued, that too within a period of three months from the date of submission
of certified copy of this order.
9. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
