IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN th ON THE 18 OF JULY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 17648 of 2024 SANTOSH KUMAR GITE AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vandana Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Naveen Dubey - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / Staet.

ORDER The present petition has been filed seeking the relief of increment payable from 1st July of the year of superannuation, though the petitioners have retired on 30th June of the said year on attaining the age of superannuation.

2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that their date of increment was 1st July. They retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th of June of the year. Thus, They had completed the requisite length of service to become entitled to earn the next annual increment up to 30th June of the year. However, since they retired on 30th of June, he were not paid the increment which was to be paid to them w.e.f. 1st of July of the year.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023 (the Director Admn. and HR KPTCL and Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors) and also the circular issued by Finance Department dated 15.03.2024 whereby the State Government has taken decision to grant such benefit in terms of the decision passed by the Apex Court in identical matters. Learned counsel further relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 8219 of 2020 (Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Ltd. and another Vs. S.R. Ramchandran and Ors) dated 11.07.2023.

4. Considering the grievance, this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to verify the service record of the petitioner and act in accordance with the aforesaid judgments as well as Finance department circular dated 15.03.2024. If the petitioner is found to have completed the length of service on 30th June of the year and to be entitled for next increment, then the necessary dues be Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR worked out and paid to them within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

5. However, an objection is raised in respect of petitioners No.1,3,4, 5 & 8 that they have retired many years prior to the date of filing of the present petition and they are fence sitters as they have retired in the year 2016, 2011, 2015, 2015 and 2014 respectively. Thus, these petitioners are fence sitters and learned counsel for the State relies on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 801/2024 which was a similar case of increment payable on 1st July of the year . The Division Bench in aforesaid judgment has held as under:-

"The learned Single Judge considering that the relief to be granted was sought after 14 years held that the petitioner shall not be entitled for arrears, by holding that he was a fence sitter.

On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any ground to interfere in the same. Delay of 14 years requires to be properly explained. He is a fence sitter and waiting for a judgment of the courts. Necessarily he will not be entitled for the same.

Therefore, we find no good ground to interfere in the same.

Further the refixation of the pension has been made applicable from the date of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We modify the same by directing the respondents for re-fixation of pension from the date the writ petition was filed.

With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is disposed off."

6. Accordingly, it is observed that petitioners No. 1,3,4,5 & 8 shall be entitled to notional increment from the date of retirement but would be entitled to get arrears of pension only from the date of filing of this writ petition.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR

7. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE nks Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR