D. Laxman Murty v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2700 of 2020 • D. Laxman Murty S/o Late Shri D.S. Rao Aged About 62 Years Sewanivarit Atirikt Mahaprabandhak Jansampark Karyalay C.G. State Power Honding Company Limited Raipur, Jila Raipur (C.G.) Niwasi Quarter No. 33/11 Kailash Nagar Kumhari, Durg Jila Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Samanya Prashasan Vibhag, Shaskiya Karmachari Kalyan Sakha Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Mahaprabandhak / Vitt Karyalay C.G. State Power Holding Company Limited Raipur Jila Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Up Mahaprabandhak / M.S.-2 Karyalay Mahaprabandhak C.G. State Power Holding Company Limited Raipur Jila Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. Sambhagiya Sanyukt Sanchalak Kosh Lekha Avam Pension Raipur Sambhag Jila Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For Respondents/ State :

Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 14/07/2020

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

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has retired from service on 30th of June, 2020. Since he has retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2020, he would be entitled for the annual increment that would be payable to him for the

period between 1st of June, 2019 to 30th of June, 2020 as the date of annual increment payable to the petitioner is 1st 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 30th June, 2020 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 15.09.2017 in W. P. No. 15732 of 2017.

4. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Jyoti