Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar Liloriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26582
1 WP-40251-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40251 of 2025
VINOD KUMAR LILORIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.K. Tiwari - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit- Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by inaction of the
respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioner, retired
on 30/06/2022, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.
2. Learned counsel for the 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26582
2 WP-40251-2025
to the 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
petitioner retired on 30/06/2022, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit
of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2022. 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 State 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 the respondents opposed the prayer to the
extent of payment of interest and enhanced pension for the period prior to
31/04/2023. He relied upon the order dated 6/9/2024 passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in SLP(C) No.4722/2021 [Union of India & Anr Vs. M.
Siddaraj]. He refers the clarification given in the said order.
5 . Heard the counsel for the petitioner 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26582
3 WP-40251-2025
the controversy and found the employee entitled for the benefit of approval
of entitlement to receive increment while rendering the services over a year
with good behavior and efficiency then it appears that petitioner has made
out his case.
7. Since the petitioner has retired on 30/06/2022 and is claiming him
outstanding claim, but in the light of the clarification issued by Apex Court
vide order dated 6/9/2024 in case of M. Siddaraj (Supra) , it appears that
following clarification deserves reiteration :-
(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 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.
8. Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual
increment to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition 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. Respondents are at liberty to consider the suitability/ eligibility of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26582
4 WP-40251-2025
the petitioner and thereafter, relief shall be granted.
10. It is hereby clarified that this order is applicable only in case where
petitioner is retired just one day prior to the date of implementation of
increment.
11. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
Chandni
