1 2025:CGHC:43559 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4411 of 2021 1 - Kuleshwar Prasad Mandavi S/o Shri Durga Prasad Mandavi Aged About 32 Years Posted As Executive Engineer At Atal Bihari Vajpai Thermal Power Station (Abvtps), Marwa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, Resident Of House No. 319, Poll Na. D - 1/45, Shivaji Chowk, Ramnagar Muktidham, Bhilai, Post Office Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Director (S/c- Gen) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Danganiya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Engineer (Human Resources) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Additional Chief Engineer (Ope./mai.), Atal Bihari Vajpai, Thermal Power Station, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Marwa Tendubhatha, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Chief Engineer (Generation) Atal Bihari Vajpai, Thermal Power Station, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Village - Marwa - Tendubhatha, Post Office - Vidyut Nagar (Lachhanpur) District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Superintending Engineer (Ahp- O And M) 2 X 500 Mw Abvv Thermal Power Station Cspgcl, Marwa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh NIRMALA RAO 2 7 - The Senior Administrative Officer Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation) Atal Bihari Vajpai, Thermal Power Station, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Village Marwa - Tendubhatha, Post Office - Vidyut Nagar (Lachhanpur) District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A. For Respondents No.2 to 7 : Shri Adhiraj Surana, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire records from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus quashing the impugned order dated 22.07.2021, whereby the annual increment has been restrained by the respondent authorities. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ directing the respondents to give the full payment/salary of the petitioner and consider the entire leave of the petitioner as earned leave on medical ground and therefore, increment cannot be affected. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the post of Executive Engineer under respondent No. 5 at Village Marwa – Tendubhatha, District Janjgir- 3 Champa, and had taken a leave for a total of 336 days. He would contend that the period of absence from 2.1.2020 to 31.3.2020, i.e., 90 days, was adjusted against the sanctioned leave. He would further contend that the absence from 1.4.2020 to 22.4.2020 was adjusted against earned leave, and the remaining 224 days of absence, from 23.4.2020 to 2.12.2020, were treated as extraordinary leave without pay and allowances. He would also contend that the annual increment was postponed for a period of 224 days on account of this extraordinary leave, and that such an order is punitive in nature. He would argue that the respondent authorities have inflicted a minor penalty without holding a departmental enquiry and providing any opportunity of hearing; therefore, the order is bad in law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 7 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent for 336 days. He would contend that the department adjusted the period of absence against the available, earned, and extraordinary leaves. He would further submit that since the petitioner did not work for 224 days, his annual increment was made effective after a delay of 224 days. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the State would support the contention made by counsel for respondents No. 2 to 7. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. A perusal of Annexure-P/1 dated 22.7.2021 would show that the annual increment of the petitioner was postponed for 224 days. Rule 4 10(iv) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘CCA Rules, 1966’), deals with minor penalties. 7. A bare reading of 10(iv) of the CCA Rules, 1966, would make it clear that the stoppage of an increment is a minor penalty. In the present case, the order with regard to the stoppage of increment for 224 days has been passed without conducting any enquiry and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The respondent authorities were under an obligation to conduct an enquiry before extending the date of accrual of annual increment according to provisions contemplated under Rule 16 of the Rules, 1966. 8. Considering the above-discussed facts, the order dated 22.7.2021 (Annexure-P/1), whereby the annual increment of the petitioner was postponed for 224 days, is hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi