Narayan Prashad Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8609 of 2019 Narayan Prashad Sahu, S/o. Late Dindayal Sahu, Aged About 66 Years, R/o. Hasuwa, Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary General Administration Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 490002.

2. Accountant General (Lekha Evam Hakdari) Ziro Point Vidhan Shabha Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Raipur Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. The Executive Engineer P.H.E. Baloda Bazar Block Baloda BazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

5. Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, Advocate For State/Respondents :

Mr. Alok Bakshi, Addl. A.G.

No.1, 3 & 4 For Respondent No.2 :

Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 18.10.2019

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 counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2016. Since the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2016, he would be entitled for the annual increment that would be payable to him for the period between 01.06.2015 to 30.06.2016 as the date of annual increment payable to the petitioners 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 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 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 Ashok