Retiring employees on June 30th are entitled to an annual increment falling due on July 1st.

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Dongre, was an employee of the State of Madhya Pradesh who superannuated from service on 30.06.2026.

He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to grant him one annual increment that fell due on 01.07.2026 (the day after his retirement).

Consequently, he sought a revision of his retiral dues, pension, and arrears with interest, citing previous High Court precedents.

The State contested the claim by arguing the matter is governed by specific Supreme Court directives.

1. Whether a government employee who retires on 30th June is entitled to the annual increment falling due on 1st July for the purpose of pensionary benefits?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the arrears of such retiral benefits?

The Court primarily applied the law declared by the Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. M. Siddaraj (M.A. Diary No. 2400/2024 in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023), which established that while an increment falling due the day after retirement is to be counted for pension, the financial arrears for third parties (those not part of the original litigation) are payable only from 01.05.2023, or for a limited retrospective period of three years if a petition was filed earlier.

The court relied on Madhya Pradesh Purv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. v. Vidyut Mandal Pension Samaj & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 16679/2025), which clarified that interest on such arrears cannot be awarded as it was not contemplated in the M. Siddaraj judgment.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s claim for a 1st July increment after a 30th June retirement is a settled legal position under the M. Siddaraj precedent.

The Court observed that the relief must be strictly modulated by the timeline and conditions set by the Supreme Court.

Specifically, the Court perused the Vidyut Mandal Pension Samaj ruling to determine the validity of the petitioner’s request for interest.

Since the Supreme Court had explicitly set aside orders of the High Court that granted 7% interest on similar arrears, holding that such interest "exceeded" the mandate of M. Siddaraj, the Court here found that the petitioner's prayer for interest could not be entertained.

The analysis concludes that the petitioner is entitled to the increment benefit, but subject to the restrictive date of payment (arrears) and without interest.

The holding implies the petitioner is entitled to the increment for pension revision; however, the payment of arrears is governed by the cut-off dates mentioned in the cited precedents, and the prayer for interest on said arrears is effectively denied.