[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Yogeshwar Singh Kshatriya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 April, 2026
1/4
2026:CGHC:17572
NAFR
PAWAN
KUMAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
JHA
Digitally
signed by
PAWAN
KUMAR JHA
WPS No. 3349 of 2026
• Yogeshwar Singh Kshatriya S/o Late Phool Dhand Kshatriya Aged
About 64 Years Retired Head Master (Middle School) At Govt. Middle
School, Jaroundha, Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) R/o. Ward
No.2, Kailash Nagar, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur,
Distict Raipur (C.G.)
2. Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.)
3. Divisional Joint Director Fund, Account And Pension, Bilaspur Division,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. District Education Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
5. Block Education Officer Takhatpur District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate
For State : Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
17/04/2026
1. Heard.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for grant of
benefit of one annual increment while fixing the pension and other
retiral dues, as despite rendering full one year of service, the petitioner
was not allowed annual increment only because he had retired on 30th
June of the respective year.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was
retired from service on 30.06.2024 and he would be entitled for annual
increment that would be payable to him for the period between
01.07.2023 to 30.06.2024 as the date of annual increment payable to
the petitioner is 1st July, though this Court earlier in WPS No.8945/2019
vide order dated 05.11.2019 has directed the State Authorities to
consider the said aspect and also taking into consideration the
judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in P.
Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal
and Others passed in WP No. 15732/2017, but respondent No.2 has
declined to pay the annual increment w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.06.2018
vide its order dated 15.09.2020 holding that the order passed by the
Division Bench of Madras High Court is in nature of "personam and not
in rem". Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that an
identical issue has come up before this High Court in WPS No.3036 of
2020, Pitambar Singh Nayak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others
connected matters, in which the following was observed at paras 6
and 7 which read thus :-
"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 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."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that recently on
03.08.2023, the State Finance Department had issued the finance
instructions 26/2023, wherein a clarification has been issued for grant
of notionally pay fixation increment for the public servant whose
retirement dates are 31st December and 30th June and in the said
circular, it has also been clarified that the said provision was also
applicable to the retired government servants, therefore, as the State
itself has issued the circular, no controversy remains and the petition
may be allowed in the light of the said circular.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State would submit that an
identical issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court in the
matter of Director (Adm. And HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P.
Mundinamani and others [(2023) SCC Online SC 401] and the
authority be directed to only verify the fact whether the petitioner has
been granted benefit of the increment on 1st July of the year in which
he has been retired.
6. Considering the submissions and particularly considering judgment in
the matter of Pitamabar Singh Nayak (supra) passed by this Court,
wherein taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and ors. (supra) this
Court has quashed the circular dated 15.07.2020 and allowed the
bunch of petition, this case is also covered by the said judgment,
further the State has issued the recent finance instructions 26/2023 for
giving notionally pay fixation to the public servants who were going to
retire on 31st December and 30th June and the said circular was also
applicable to the retired government servants, therefore, in the light of
said circular nothing remains for the adjudication. Accordingly, this
petition is hereby allowed.
7. The respondent authorities are directed to verify the fact whether the
petitioner has been granted increment on 1st of July of the year in
which he has retired. If during the course of the inquiry/scrutiny, it is
found that he has not been granted increment, appropriate steps for
grant of increment which fell due on 1st of July be added to the basic
pay of the petitioner 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 copy of this
order.
Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
pwn
