IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 2068 of 2026 PARSHURAM DOHARE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Trishant Mishra-Advocate for petitioner.

Shri S.S. Kushwaha-Government Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER Per: Justice Anand Pathak

1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents for not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioner, retired on 30/06/2020, was denied increment on the pretext that he is not entitled.

2. Learned counsel for the 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 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 petitioner retired on 30.06.2020, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which was to be added on 01.07.2020. 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 28.07.2023.

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 11-07-2023.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer to the extent of payment of interest and enhanced pension for the period prior to 31/04/2023. 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 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 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. Since the petitioner has retired on 30.06.2020 and is claiming him outstanding claim, but in the light of the clarification issued by Apex Court vide order dated 6/9/2024 in case of M. Siddaraj (Supra), it appears that following clarification deserves reiteration :-

(a) The Judgment dated 11/04/2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01/05/2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31/04/2023 will not be paid.

(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be paid.

(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been prefer