Gangadas Tandan v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 444 of 2020 Gangadas Tandan S/o Shri Ratandas Tandan Aged About 66 Years Resident of Devi Nagar, Near Maharana Pratap Chowk, Tahsil Bilaspur, Police Station- Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Chhattisgarh through- the Secretary, State Government of Chhattisgarh Panchayat and Gramni Vikas Vibhag Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Vikas, Abhikaran Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaran, Pariyojna Kriyanyavan Ikai, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4. Joint Director Treasury and Account Pension, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the State/Respondents : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board -01-2020

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is for grant of benefit of one annual increment while fixing pension and other retiral dues payable to the petitioner.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2016. Since the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2019, he would be entitled for the annual increment that would be payable to him for the period between 1st of June, 2015 to 30th of June, 2016 as the date of annual increment payable to the petitioners is of first of July. Therefore,

according to the counsel for the petitioner, while quantifying pension and other retiral dues, the annual increment which the petitioner became entitled for having worked till 30.06.2016 has to be added to the last pay and other allowances also.

3. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, let the respondents 1 to 3 consider the case of the petitioners for grant of one annual increment to the last salary which the petitioners have received for the purpose of quantifying pension and other retiral dues. While deciding the claim of the petitioners, the respondents shall take into consideration the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal decided on 15.09.2017 in W.P.No.15732 of 2017.

4. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o