SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1603

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Krishangopal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Rudra Pratap Singh Kaurav[P-1],Advocate General[R-1]

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

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

th

ON THE 30 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 2405 of 2026 KRISHANGOPAL SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Suryakant Jaat - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Vivek Khedkar - Senior Advocate/AAG along with Shri Sohit Mishra -

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 30/06/2015, 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 Hig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top