Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Jayant Bhai Dhagat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 23 rd OF APRIL, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 10719 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
DR JAYANT BHAI DHAGAT S/O LATE SHRI NARAYAN
SHANKAR DHAGAT, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED GOVT SERVANT 1377 SITARAM
COLONY DISTRICT GUNA MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AKSHAT KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF, WATER RESOURCE
DEPARTMENT R/O BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF ENGINEER, BHUJAL SURVEKSHAR
ADHIKARI , WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
R/O BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER R/O GWALIOR
DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER R/O GORKHI
GWALIOR TREASURY DISTT GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUSHANT TIWARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 4/24/2024 2:03:41 PM 2 been preferred by petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioner, who retired on 30.06.2020, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.
2 . Learned counsel for 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 of 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 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 present petitioner stood retired on 30.06.2020, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2020.
3 . Learned counsel for respondent/State has no objection to the prayer so made by counsel for the petitioner.
4 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
5. 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/31st December of that year. Once the Apex Court has decided the controversy and found the employee entitled for the benefit of Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 4/24/2024 2:03:41 PM 3 approval of entitlement to receive increment while rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiency then it appears that petitioner has made out his case.
6. In light of the aforesaid as well as the Circular dated 11.04.2023, the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w.e.f. 01.07.2020 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension etc., and issue fresh pension payment order 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.
7 . Accordingly, petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 4/24/2024 2:03:41 PM