Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 55 (MP)

Rajaram Arya v. State of M. P.

2025-01-23

ANAND PATHAK, HIRDESH

body2025
ORDER Per : Justice Anand Pathak 1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were retired on 30.6.2009, 30.6.2021, 30.6.2023 and 30.6.2023 respectively, were denied increment on the pretext that they are not entitled. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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. v. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 dated 11.4.2023, 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 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 Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were retired on 30.6.2009, 30.6.2021, 30.6.2023 and 30.6.2023 respectively, therefore, they are entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 1.7.2009, 1.7.2021, 1.7.2023 and 1.7.2023 respectively. The said aspect has also been dealt with by the Full Bench of this Court also in the case of Ratanlal Rathore v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Writ Petition No.4118 of 2020) decided on 28.7.2023. 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 11.7.2023. 4. An 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 petitioners 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. 5. Heard the counsel for the petitioners 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. v. 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 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 Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were retired on 30.6.2009, 30.6.2021, 30.6.2023 and 30.6.2023 respectively and are claiming their outstanding claim, therefore, as per the judgment of apex Court in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, AIR Online 2022 SC 735, it is clarified that petitioners 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). It is also clarified that this order shall be applicable in case petitioners retire immediately one day before the date of grant of increment. 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 petitioners, 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 the petitioners and thereafter, relief shall be granted. 10. It is hereby clarified that this order is applicable only in case where petitioners are retired just one day prior to the date of implementation of increment. 11. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.