[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1844
1 WP-404-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 404 of 2026
AMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Chauhan - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel- learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
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 in not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioner who
retired on 30/06/2021, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not
entitled.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that whether a
Government employee retiring on 30th June/31st of December of the year, is
entitled to avail the benefit of increment as fixed on 1st July/1st of January,
has been decided by the Supreme Court 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1844
2 WP-404-2026
been held that benefit of annual increment which is to be added on 1st of
July/1st of January every year shall be given to the employee who retire on
30th June/31st of December of the said year. It is further submitted that
controversy is now no longer res-integra. The petitioner retired
on 30/06/2021, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual
increment which was to be added on 01/07/2021. 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 submitted 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 & 6.7 it appears that the
view of M.P. High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria &
ors. Vs. State of M.P. has been considered in favour of employee who is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1844
3 WP-404-2026
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
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. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Purv
Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. Vs. Vidyut Mandal Pension Samaj and
others in SLP (c) No.16679/2025 has set aside the order of this Court
regarding grant of interest on the payment of arrears of increment. The Court
held as under :-
"A bare perusal of the order of this Court in M. Siddaraj (supra) makes
it is clear that this Court did not award any interest on the payments to be
made in terms of the directions therein. Having stated that the order of this
Court was being followed, the High Court seems to have exceeded the same
by awarding interest, which was not contemplated in M. Siddaraj (supra).
The direction of the High Court to the extent that it awarded interest at the
rate of 7% per annum on the arrears payable to the private respondents is,
accordingly, set aside."
8. Since the petitioner has retired on 30/06/2021 and is claiming his
outstanding claim, but in the light of the clarification issued by Apex
Court vide order dated 06/09/2024 in the case of M. Siddaraj (Supra), it
appears that following clarification deserves reiteration:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1844
4 WP-404-2026
(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.
9. Resultantly, respondents are directed to verify as to whether the
petitioner was drawing regular increment on 1st of July every year while he
was in service? If the answer is affirmative, the benefit of annual increment
be given to the petitioner with effect from 01.05.2023 and a fresh pension
payment order be issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner shall,
however, be not entitled to any interest on arrears payable to him. Let
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1844
5 WP-404-2026
needful be done within a period of three months from the date of
submission of certified copy of this order.
10. Respondents are at liberty to consider the suitability/eligibility of
the petitioner and thereafter, relief shall be granted.
11. 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 due on 1st of July of the year of his retirement.
12. Petition stands disposed off in above terms.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
rahul
