Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Kumar Kaurav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20017
1 WP-33923-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 1 st OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 33923 of 2025
RAM KUMAR KAURAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Pratiksha Sachan - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri S.S. Kushwah - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"A) Grant the benefit of the annual increment in the
light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
Hon'ble High Court.
B) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
in the present facts and circumstances of the case."
2. It is the case of petitioners that petitioner No.1 has superannuated on
30.06.2021, petitioner No.2 has superannuated on 30.06.2008, petitioner
No.3 has superannuated on 30.06.2011, petitioner No.4 has superannuated on
30.06.2006 and petitioner No.5 has superannuated on 30.06.2021, but they
have not been granted the one increment which became due w.e.f. 1st July of
the respective year of their retirement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20017
2 WP-33923-2025
3. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for State that the case in hand
is duly covered by judgment passed by Supreme Court 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.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Siddaraj (supra) 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20017
3 WP-33923-2025
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 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."
6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in the terms and conditions
of the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Siddaraj
(supra).
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
Aman
