Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.26 18:32:56 +0530 2025:CGHC:48302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9381 of 2023 Indramani Tripathi S/o Shri Jagbandhu Prasad Tripathi Aged About 64 Years R/o Main Road Paththalgaon Jashpur, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Finance Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Divisional Joint Director Public Instructions, Surguja Ambikapur, District : Surguja, Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Education Officer Jashpur, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Ambikapur, District : Surguja, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Director Treasury, Account And Pension Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 19.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned orders dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) and 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) issued by the office of respondent no. 4 and 5. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay the annual increment from the period of 01.07.2020 to 30.06.2021 which the petitioner become entitled for having worked till 30.06.2021 has to be added to the last pay and other allowance. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 01.12.2023 passed by respondent No. 4 and order dated 22.11.2023 passed by respondent No. 5, whereby the claim of the petitioner with regard to grant of annual increment was illegally rejected. It is submitted that the rejection was made on the ground that the petitioner had obtained the first time scale pay on 09.02.2021 and his next time scale was due on 3 01.01.2022, but since he superannuated on 30.06.2021, he is not entitled to increment. Earlier, the petitioner’s pension case was returned vide memo dated 25.10.2023 on the basis of Finance Direction No. 26/2009, holding that no annual increment is payable after superannuation. The said action was assailed in
Decision
W.P.(S) No. 8861 of 2023, which was disposed of on 07.11.2023 directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and directing the respondents to consider the same in light of Finance Direction No. 26 of 2023. 4. Learned counsel submits that Finance Direction No. 26 of 2023, issued by respondent no. 2 on 03.08.2023, specifically provides that employees retiring on 30th June or 31st December are entitled to annual increment. Therefore, after issuance of the 2023 direction, the earlier direction of 2009 lost its force. However, while deciding the representation, the respondent no. 5 again rejected the petitioner’s claim vide order dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-2), raising new grounds unrelated to the issue of increment, and respondent no. 4 further complied with the same by passing the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure P-1). It has been contended that the petitioner retired on 30.06.2021 and is squarely covered under Finance Direction No. 26 of 2023. The respondents, by adopting a pick-and-choose method, have acted arbitrarily and illegally in denying the benefit of annual increment, contrary to the binding directions of this Court and the applicable finance instructions. 4 5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that the present case is squarely covered by the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.3036/2020 and analogous matters. Accordingly, the instant petition may be disposed of in terms of the said order. 6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.3036/2020 and analogous matters, vide order dated 10.07.2023 has observed as under : “6. The issue as to whether the employees who have retired on the 30th of June would be entitled for the increment which fell due w.e.f. 1st of July of the year they retire was a subject matter of dispute before various High Courts in the country. Many of the High Courts have allowed the writ petitions and few of the High Courts have rejected the petitions. The entire issue thereafter traveled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others” reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401. In the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in very categorical terms held that once the petitioner has earned an increment on completing one year of service, he cannot be denied the benefit of increment, which in other words also means that if on the date of retirement, which in all these writ petitions being 30th of June, if they have earned an increment of having worked for 12 months (one year) preceding to the date of retirement, they under no circumstances can be denied the benefit of increment while quantifying the post retiral benefits. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in deciding the said case has affirmed the orders of the High Courts which had allowed the writ petitions in favour of the employees and have set-aside the 5 orders of those High Courts, which had dismissed the writ petitions categorically holding that the employees, who stood retired from 30th of June and where the increment fell due on the 1st of July would become entitle for their post retiral benefits and consequential monetary benefits by adding that one increment. 8. In the course of deliberation, the learned State counsel fairly conceded the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the aforesaid judgment has by now laid to rest the issue as regards the entitlement of one increment to those employees who stood retired on the 30th of June. However the State counsel submits that under the Rules, Guidelines and Circulars governing the Rules, there is system of payment of annual increment on two different dates in an year, for administrative and financial convenience, that is w.e.f. 1st of January of every year and w.e.f. 1st of July every year. 9. It was the contention of the State counsel that for the employees who stood appointed between the 1st of January to the 31st of May, all such employees would be granted increment from the 1st of January as per Rule 17 of the Finance Rules. In other words the State counsel intended that for the employees who stood retired prior to 1st of July, they would be entitled for gratuity w.e.f. 1st of January and for the employees who stands retired subsequent to the 1st of July till the 31st of December, they would be entitled for increment from the 1st of July. 10. It was the further submission made by the learned State counsel that now in the context of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “C.P. Mundinamani” (supra) all these writ petitions can be safely disposed of, subject to scrutiny of the State Government, verifying whether the petitioners herein who stood retired on the 30th of June have been granted increment on the 1st of January of the year of retirement or not, and if they have not been 6 granted the increment, the petitioners shall be granted the benefit of the increment which they would have received otherwise on the 1st of July of the year in which they stood retired. 11. Given the said submission by the learned State counsel and also in the light of the judgment recently rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court laying to rest the entire issue so far as granting of increment to persons who stood retired on the 30th of June, the present bunch of writ petitions stand disposed of firstly by quashing the circular dated 15.07.2020, which in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “C.P. Mundinamani” (supra) would not any further be sustainable and the same therefore stands quashed. 12. The respondents are directed to verify the case of each of the petitioners as to whether they have been granted increment from 1st of January of the year in which they have retired. That if in the course of inquiry/scrutiny it is found that they have not been granted increment, appropriate steps for grant of increment which fell due on 1st of July be added to the basic pay of each of the petitioners and accordingly calculate the post retiral benefits including the pensionary benefits. Let this entire exercise be concluded within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 13. It is made clear that now that these writ petitions are being allowed particularly in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court each of the petitioners would be entitled for the arrears of the difference of amount from the date of retirement onwards.” 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issues involved in the present writ petition are identical to those considered by the Co-ordinate 7 Bench of this Court in WPS No.3036/2020 and other analogous matters. In the said matters, this Court has examined in detail the entitlement of employees to annual increments in cases of retirement on 30th June or 31st December, in light of the relevant finance directions and rules. 8. Given the striking similarity of the facts, issues, and applicable legal provisions, this Court finds it appropriate to follow the principle of consistency and judicial discipline and, therefore, declines to take a view different from that adopted in WPS No.3036/2020 and other analogous matters. Consequently, the decision rendered in WPS No.3036/2020 serves as binding guidance for disposing of the present petition. Sd/- - (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh