IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 17 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 48250 of 2025 ANIL PAL Versus HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shafiqullah - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sandeep K. Shukla - Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2.

Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Dy. Advocate General for the respondent No.3/State.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is about the non-grant of an annual increment, which became due on completion of one year’s service before attaining the age of superannuation, before the first of July. In some of the cases, the petitioner or the employees, whose widows/legal heirs have approached this Court, have retired from service on 30th June and in others, they have retired on 31st December of the year of their superannuation. It is their case that they have not been extended the benefit of increment, which otherwise became due to them on 1st July of the same year or 1st January of the next year, as the case may be.

Hence, this petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Director (ADMN) and HR KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401, wherein it is held that the entitlement to receive annual increment crystallizes, when the Government servant completes a requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day. The Supreme Court further held that an annual increment earned on the last day of service for rendering good service preceding one year from the date of retirement, with good behavior and efficiency, was liable to be paid to the employees.

4. The circular dated 15.03.2024 has already been issued by the Finance Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein all departments have been directed to grant annual increment to all the employees who have retired on 30th June/31st December with regard to the annual increment that became payable on 1st July or 1st January, as the case may be. Hence, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to extend the pensionary benefits to the petitioner after adding annual increment from the due date along with arrears and interest thereon, within a stipulated time.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by the said Circular, and the same is being implemented, and the case is being scrutinized and processed accordingly.

6. Be that as it may, since the petitioner/employees superannuated from service on 30th June or 31st December, as the case may be, they are entitled to get the annual increment on the succeeding day of their retirement i.e., on 1st of July or 1st of January, as the case may be.

7. That this Court, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, 2022 SCC Online SC 641 had noticed that, as there was a delay in approaching the Court, the benefit of arrears was restricted to a period of three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition. However, the Supreme Court in respect of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) has clarified by order dated 06.09.2024, as further modified vide order dated 20.02.2025 in Miscellaneous Application (Diary) No.2400/2024 in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 titled Union of India & Another Vs. M. Siddaraj as under:-

“(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 increm