High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/1889/2020disposed off

Radheshyam Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2020-05-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1889 of 2020 Radheshyam Yadav S/o Late Bhukhan Yadav, Aged About 65 Years Retired Assistant Grade I I I, R/o Behind Old High Court Building, Near Maa Durga Manch Diprapara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Joint Director, Treasury, Account and Pension, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

3. District Treasury Officer, Janjgir - Champa, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh.

4. Executive Engineer, Minimata Bango Canal Division No. 6, Sakti, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate For the State/Respondents : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board -05-2020

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

2. According to the petitioner, he retired from service on 30th of June, 2017. Since he has retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2017, he would be entitled for the annual increment that would be payable to him for the period between 1st of June, 2016 to 30th of June 2017 as the date of annual increment payable to the petitioner is 1st of July. Therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioner, while quantifying the pension and other retiral dues, the annual increment which the petitioner became entitled for having worked till

30th June, 2017 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 petitioner for grant of one annual increment to the last salary which the petitioner has received for the purpose of quantifying pension and other retiral dues. While deciding the claim of the petitioner, 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 and others decided on 15.09.207 in W.P. No. 15732/2017.

4. with the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE Rao