Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mathura Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 July, 2023
Author: Nandita Dubey
Bench: Nandita Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
ON THE 27 th OF JULY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 17557 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. MATHURA SINGH THAKUR S/O LATE SHRI
DADADU SINGH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED ASSISTANT GRADE III
PWD OFFICE WARD NO. 9 DINDORI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. PREM LAL JHARIYA S/O LATE B.L. JHARIYA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
ASSISTANT GRADE 2 PWD OFFICE POST
MADHIYARAS, DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SUDEEP SINGH SAINI - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
CHIEF SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR , D I N D O R I DISTRICT DINDORI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, DINDORI DISTRICT
DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI V.P. TIWARI - GOVT. ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: GEETHA NAIR
Signing time: 7/27/2023
4:37:24 PM
2
ORDER
The issue in the present petition is with regard to entitlement of annual increment to the employee on the event of retirement.
This issue has been earlier considered in the case of T h e Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others (Civil Appeal No.4349/2023), reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 401 wherein the Supreme Court has held thus :-
"21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
The same has been relied upon in the case of Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Com. Ltd. and another vs. S.R. Ramchandran and others (SLP (C) No.8219/2020) and the Supreme Court has held thus :-
"Mr. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf o f the appellant's seeks to distinguish this authority by pointing out that Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997 is different from Rule 10 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules,2008 as also Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh (Pay Revision) Rules, 2009 and Rule 10 of Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules,2008.
We have gone through these rules and in our opinion, though these Rules are differently phrased, they have the same import, on the strength of Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:37:24 PM 3 which the Co-ordinate Bench had dismissed the petition of the employer. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders assailed in this set of petitions and these petitions shall stand dismissed."
Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra ) and S.R. Ramchandran (supra), this petition is allowed, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added with effect from 01.07.2020 and 01.07.2023 respectively and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue fresh PPO in favour of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.
(NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE gn Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 7/27/2023 4:37:24 PM