MURLIDHAR PRAJAPATI v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 2024-01-12. MURLIDHAR PRAJAPATI 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 12 OF JANUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 150 of 2024 BETWEEN:- MURLIDHAR PRAJAPATI S/O SHRI PUNEETRAM PRAJAPATI, AGED-65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O INFRONT OF GOMTI LODGE GULAB GANJ GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH) ..... PETITIONER (BY SHRI A. K. JAIN- ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMER WELFARE, VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. D IR ECTOR DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMER WELFARE VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMER WELFARE GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH) 4. ASSISTANT SOIL CONSERVATOR OFFICER GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH) 5. DIST. PENSION OFFICER GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH) .....
RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI NITIN GOYAL- PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE) This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the following: ORDER Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI Signing time: 12-Jan-24 5:31:22 PM 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. 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 30th June, 2020, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01. 07. 2020. 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI Signing time: 12-Jan-24 5:31:22 PM 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, 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. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms. (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Chandni Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI Signing time: 12-Jan-24 5:31:22 PM
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.