IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF

th

ON THE 4 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 45830 of 2025 VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Santosh Sahu - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Anubhav Jain - GA for the respondent/State.

ORDER Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice A common grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is with regard to grant of annual increment which became due on completion of one year’s service before attaining the age of 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. Hence, this petition has been filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 crystallises 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 annual increment earned on the last day of service for rendering good service preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiency was liable to be paid to the employees.

3. Reference may be had to the circular dated 15.03.2024 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 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 petitioners after adding annual increment from the due date along with arrears and interest thereon within a stipulated time.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the issue involved in the present petitions is covered by the said Circular and the same is being implemented and the cases are being scrutinized and processed accordingly.

5. Be that as it may, since petitioner No.1, 3 and 4 superannuated from service on 30th June, they are entitled to get the annual increment on the succeeding day of their retirement i.e. on 1st of July. So far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned he retired on 30th April, 2024, without completing a year from the last date of annual increment, therefore, he is not entitled to get any annual increment as it was not due on the succeeding day of his retirement.

6. 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 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 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 preferred, or if filed, is entertained by