Back
ANAND PATHAK
Anand Mohan Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
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 30.6.2020, 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. v. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 dated 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 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 1.7.2020. The said aspect has als
Employees retiring on June 30 are entitled to annual increments effective July 1, as established by recent Supreme Court rulings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
