DR. SUDHKAR PARASHAR & Ors. v. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.

DR. SUDHKAR PARASHAR S/O LATE SHRI NETRAM PARASHAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED GOVT. SERVANT R/O BILGAON TAHSIL JOURA DISTRICT MORENA(MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE) AND

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AYUSH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF M.P., VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH GROUND FLOOR, 'D-WING' SATPUDA BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH) DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH) PENSION DISTRICT DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH) OFFICER, MORENA (BY SHRI SHIRAZ QURESHI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the .....RESPONDENTS following: ORDER 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 02-Aug-23 5:25:19 PM not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioner, who retired as Hand 2 Pump Technician 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.

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.

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 has decided the controversy and found the employee entitled for the benefit of approval of entitlement to Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 02-Aug-23 5:25:19 PM 3 receive increment while rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiency then it appears that petitioner has made out his case.

Resultantly, 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.