SMT. PUSHPLATA KUSHWAH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 2024-01-10. SMT. PUSHPLATA KUSHWAH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 10 OF JANUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 471 of 2024 BETWEEN:- SMT. PUSHPLATA KUSHWAH W/O SHRI MAHENDRA SINGH KUSHWAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PENSIONER (RETIRED SUPERWISER MAHILA BAL VIKAS VIBHAG DISTT. MOERNA ) 110, ADITYA NAGAR C. P. COLONY MURAR DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) ..... PETITIONER (BY SHRI NEERAJ SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MAHILA EVAM BAL VIKAS VIBHAG, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. COMMISSIONER INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT MAHILA EVAM BAL VIKAS VIBHAG VIJYARAJE VATSALY BHAWAN 28A ARERA HILLS (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. JILA KARYAKRAM ADHIKARI WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH) 4. JILA KOSALAY ADHIKARI MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH) 5. JILA KOSALAY ADHIKARI GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) 6. JILA PENSION ADHIKARI MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH) 7.
JILA PENSION ADHIKARI GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 10-01-2024 06:55:10 PM ..... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SOHIT MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: ORDER 1. The instant petition has been preferred by petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. Petitioner, who retired on 30. 06. 2014, 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 30th June, 2014, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01. 07. 2014. 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 respondent/State could not dispute the passing of said order.
However, he submits that it appears that SLP arising out of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 10-01-2024 06:55:10 PM judgment of Division Bench of this Court is still pending consideration before the Supreme Court. 4. Heard the 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 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 behaviour and efficiency then it appears that petitioner has made out his case. 6. Resultantly, the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added w. e. f. 01. 07. 2014 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. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms. (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Pawar Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 10-01-2024 06:55:10 PM
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.