IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 13 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 553 of 2026

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Mr. Ravi Shankar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. B.M. Patel - GA for the State.

ORDER which was to be added on 01/07/2021. 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

The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents in not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioner who retired on 30/06/2021, was

denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that whether a Government

employee retiring on 30th June/31st of December of the year, is entitled to avail the benefit of increment as fixed on 1st July/1st of January, has been decided by the Supreme Court 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/1st of January every year shall be given to the employee who retire on 30th June/31st of December of the said year. It is further submitted that controversy is now no longer res-integra. The petitioner retired on 30/06/2021 therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment

28.07.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted 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

11/07/2023.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer to the extent of payment of interest and enhanced pension for the period prior to 30/04/2023. He relied upon the order dated 6/9/2024 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.4722/2021 [Union of India & Anr Vs. M. Siddaraj]. He refers the clarification given in the said order.

5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents appended thereto.

6. After going through the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), in para 6.3 & 6.7 it appears that the view of M.P. High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria & ors. Vs. State of M.P. 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 behavior and efficiency then it appears that petitioner has made out his case.

7. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Purv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. Vs. Vidyut Mandal Pension Samaj and others in SLP (c) No.16679/2025 has set aside the order of this Court regarding grant of interest on the payment of arrears of increment. The Court held as under :-

"A bare perusal of the order of this Court in M. Siddaraj (supra) makes it is clear that this Court did not award any interest on the payments to be made in terms of the directions therein. Having stated that the order of this Court was being followed, the High Court seems to have exceeded the same by awarding interest, which was not contemplated in M. Siddaraj (supra). The direction of the High Court to the extent that it awarded interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the arrears payable to the private respondents is, accordingly, set aside."

8. Since the petitioner has retired on 30/06/2013 and is claiming his outstanding claim, but in the light of