Madhya Pradesh HC: Post-Retirement Increment Claims Must Align With Supreme Court Guidelines

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the entitlement of retired employees to annual increments falling due immediately after their superannuation is subject to the timelines and conditions prescribed by the Supreme Court. A division bench comprising Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla disposed of a writ petition filed under the Constitution of India, emphasizing that claims for enhanced pension based on notional increments are subject to specific cut-off dates and interest restrictions.

The Court was hearing a plea where a retired employee sought the benefit of an annual increment that became due on July 1, 2023, just one day after his retirement on June 30, 2023. While the petitioner relied on several precedents including Director (Admin. &HR) KPTCL and ors. Vs C.P. Mundinamani and others and Kailash Narayan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & others, the Court noted that the legal landscape regarding the retrospective application of these benefits has been explicitly defined by recent Supreme Court rulings.

Supreme Court’s Framework on Notional Increments

The High Court observed that the issue is now squarely covered by the directions issued in Union of India and another Vs. M. Siddaraj and Madhya Pradesh Purv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. Vs. Vidyut Mandal Pension Samaj & Ors.. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The Supreme Court in the case of M. Siddaraj (supra) has held... 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."

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that for employees who approached the judiciary after the Union of India and another Vs. M. Siddaraj verdict, the benefit of enhanced pension would not include arrears beyond what was specifically permitted in the Apex Court's modified directions. Crucially, the bench noted that interest on such arrears is not permissible if it exceeds the original mandate of the Supreme Court.

No Interest on Arrears of Notional Increment

Referring to the decision in Madhya Pradesh Purv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. Vs. Vidyut Mandal Pension Samaj & Ors., the High Court reiterated that the award of interest on such pensionary arrears is improper. The Apex Court had previously set aside High Court orders that granted interest at 7% per annum, noting that such interest was not contemplated in the original Union of India and another Vs. M. Siddaraj framework.

The Court has the following directions:

"(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 the appellate court.

(d) In case any retired employee filed an application for intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable for the period of three years prior to the month in which the application for intervention/ impleadment/ writ petition/ original application was filed."

Background:

The petitioner, Bharat Singh Bhadouria, superannuated on June 30, 2023. He approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to command the State to decide his representation for an annual increment effective from July 1, 2023. He sought revised pay and pension with all consequential benefits and 18% interest. The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, contended that while the principle of granting the increment was accepted, the modalities and the period of payment must strictly follow the Supreme Court's latest directives in Union of India and another Vs. M. Siddaraj and Madhya Pradesh Purv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. Vs. Vidyut Mandal Pension Samaj & Ors.. The High Court agreed with the State's submission and disposed of the petition, directing that the petitioner's claim be settled according to the specific terms and conditions laid down by the Supreme Court.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No. 50053 of 2025
NeutralCitation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:17787
Case Title: BHARAT SINGH BHADOURIA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearances:
For the Respondent(s): Shri Ankur Mody - A.A.G. for State.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 52