Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Usha Kiran Saxena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
1 WP-38114-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 38114 of 2025
SMT.USHA KIRAN SAXENA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Goyal and Shri Gaurav Singh Bhadoria, learned counsel for
the petitioner .
Shri G.K. Agrawal - GA for respodents/State.
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to grant
of annual increment which became due on completion of one year's service
before attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner has retired on
31st December of the year of her superannuation. It is his case that he has not
been extended the benefit of increment which otherwise became due to her on 1st
January of the next year, as the case may be. Hence, this petition has been filed.
2 . The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Director (ADMN) and HR KPTCL
v. C.P. Mundinamani , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 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
2 WP-38114-2025
from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiency was liable to be
paid to the employees.
3. 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 to the petitioner after adding
annual increment from the due date along with arrears and interest thereon within
a stipulated time.
4 . Learned counsel for the State submits that the issue involved in the
present petition is covered by the said Circular and the same is being
implemented and the cases are being scrutinized and processed accordingly.
5 . Be that as it may, since petitioner/employee superannuated on 31st
December as the case may be, she is entitled to get the annual increment on the
succeeding day of her retirement i.e. 1st of January, as the case may be.
6 . That this Court following the judgment of the Supreme Court in
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. Mudinamani (supra) has clarified by order dated 06.09.2024 as further
modified vide order 20.02.2025 in Miscellaneous Application (Diary)
No.2400/2024 in Civil Appeal No.3933/2023 titled Union of India & Another Vs.
3 WP-38114-2025
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 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/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 which the
application for intervention/ impleadment/ writ petition/ original
application was filed."
7. 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 the 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 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.
4 WP-38114-2025
8. The learned Government counsel argued that there is nothing on record
to show that the petitioner was being paid regular increment on 1st of January
every years. It is his submission, based on the option given by employee, the
increment was payable either on 1st July or 1st January and if the petitioner was
being paid increment on 1st July, then he would not be entitled to increment on
1st January.
9. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to verify the claim of the
petitioner in view of Apex Court judgment and grant the annual increment to the
petitioner if became due to her on 1st of January of the succeeding year with all
consequential benefits in the above manner. Further, it is directed that the amount
accrued in favour of the petitioner on account of annual increment be paid to her
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).
10. In this view of the matter, in this case as there is a delay by the
petitioner in approaching the Court, the benefit of arrears shall be restricted and
shall be payable only w.e.f. 19.09.2023 along with interest 6% per annum as
directed by the Supreme Court in the case of Siddaraj (supra).
11. In view of the foregoing, this writ petition is disposed of in the above
terms.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
