Page No.1 of 2 IN WPS-8496-2019 2026:CGHC:182 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8496 of 2019 Satyanarayan Rajwade S/o Late Shri Dashrath Ram Rajwade Aged About 63 Years Retired Turner Grade 01, Karyalay Vidhyut Yantrikee Bhari Sanyantr Sambhag Jalsanshadhan Vibhag Bilaspur R/o Gram Subhashnagar Ward No. 02 Ambikapur Thana Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Samanya Prashashan Vibhag, Shash. Karmchari Kalyan Shakha Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Adhikshan Abhiyanta Vidhyut Yantrikee Mandal Jal Sanshadhan Vibhag Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Karyapalan Abhiyanta Karyalay Karyapalan Abhiyanta Vi./ya. Bhari Sanyantr Sambhag Jalsanshadhan Vibhag, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sambhagiya Sanyukt Sanchalak, Kosh Lekha Avm Pension Bilaspur Sambhag District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. Abhisek Dahuriya, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. Govt. Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 02.01.2026 1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the matter of WPS-3036-2020 (Pitambar SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 2 IN WPS-8496-2019 Singh Nayak v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other connected matters decided on 10.07.2023 and, therefore, this petition may also been disposed of in light of the directions made therein. 2. This Court in the matter of Pitambar Singh Nayak (supra) held as under: “12. The respondents are directed to verify the case of each of the petitioners as to whether they have been granted increment from 1st of January of the year in which they have retired. That if in the course of inquiry/scrutiny it is found that they have not been granted increment, appropriate steps for grant of increment which fell due on 1st of July be added to the basic pay pay of each of the petitioners and accordingly calculate the post retiral benefits including the pensionary benefits. Let this entire exercise be concluded within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 13. It is made clear that now that these writ petitions are being allowed particularly in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court each of the petitioners would be entitled for the arrears of the difference of amount from the date of retirement onwards.” 3. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed of in light of the directions passed in Para-12 & 13 in the matter of Pitambar Singh Nayak (supra). Accordingly, the respondents are directed to verify the case of the petitioner herein and, if found entitled, grant appropriate benefits within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. s@if Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge