Paul Das Varghese v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2110 of 2020 • Paul Das Varghese S/o Late K.V. John Aged About 67 Years Retd. Assistant Grade- III, Water Resources Department, Raipur. R/o C-24. Liss Villa, Near Mahamaya Vihar, New Gayatri Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Pin 492001 ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur- 492002, Chhattisgarh

2. The Chief Engineer Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Circle Raipur492001, Chhattisgarh

3. The Executive Engineer Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Circle, Raipur- 492001 ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri B.P. Rao, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Shri Amrito Das, Addl. AG Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 18/06/20

1. The grievance of the petitioner is non granting of annual increment on completion of one year service from the initial date of appointment.

2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 841/2010 and WPS No.844/2010 which were disposed of on 24.02.2011, the State Govt. has extended the benefit to similarly placed persons. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the State authorities are extending the benefits only to those persons who are getting the order from the High Court and not otherwise.

3. State counsel, at this juncture, submits that subject to verification of facts whether the claim of the petitioner is identical in nature to the said similarly placed persons who have been granted the benefits in the very same department, the petition of the petitioner can be disposed.

4. Given the aforesaid statement made by the counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending, rather ends of justice would meet if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 2 & 3 to verify the factual contents as stated in the preceding paragraphs and also verify whether identically placed persons have been extended the benefit or not and take appropriate steps so far as the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner would be at liberty to make fresh representation to the respondents 2 & 3.

5. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu