RAJRAM ARYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were retired on 30/6/2009, 30/6/2021, 30/6/2023 and 30/6/2023 respectively, were denied increment on the pretext that they are not entitled.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 July is being decided by the Supreme Court recently in the case of the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Ors., Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 dtd. 11/4/2023, 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 petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were retired on 30/6/2009, 30/6/2021, 30/6/2023 and 30/6/2023 respectively, therefore, they are entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 1/7/2009, 1/7/2021, 1/7/2023 and 1/7/2023 respectively. 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 28/7/2023.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that earlier an SLP (Civil) No.8119/2020 was preferred by the State challenging the orders passed in W.P.No.298/2020 and W.A.No.319/2020 but the same has been dismissed on 11/7/2023.