Sanjeev Shrivastava vs State Of MP

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

''7. It is therefore respectfully prayed that the petition of petitioner, may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and directed to respondents to release the increment to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment.''

It  is  submitted  by  the  counsel  for  the  petitioner  that  the controversy involved in the petition has been put to rest by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Purohit & Others vs. State of MP &  Others, reported in 2016(1) MPLJ 449. It is further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 19/02/2018 passed in the case of Anuroop Singhai and Ors. vs. State of MP & Others [Writ Appeal No.37/2018] has also held that the employee is entitled for annual increment from the date of his/her qualifying the Typing Examination.

Per contra, the petition is opposed by the counsel for the State, however, the counsel for the State could not rebut the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Purohit (supra) as well as the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of Anuroop Singhai (supra).

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Although  in  the  petition  the  petitioner  has  claimed  annual increment from the date of his initial appointment but in the light of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Purohit (supra), the controversy has been put to rest and the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of increment from the date of his/her qualifying the Typing Examination.

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of   Anuroop Singhai (supra) has held as under:-

''In view of the said fact, though the appellants are not entitled to increment from the date of appointment but we find that the order passed by the learned Single Bench to grant annual increment after one year is contrary to the decision of the Full Bench in Manoj Kumar Purohit's case (supra). Therefore, the said part of the order is set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of increment to the appellants from the date of their qualifying the Typing Examination. Appeal is allowed in the above terms. ''

Accordingly, this petition is finally disposed of in the light of the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anuroop Singhai (supra).

(