1 2025:CGHC:10173 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 398 of 2021  S.L. Dixit S/o Late Shri Lalji Dixit Aged About 76 Years Retired Assistant Health Supervisor, Presently Residence At Village - Post Chakarbhata Station Road Ward No.9 District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Health Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Chief Medical And Health Officer Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Accountant General Chhattisgarh Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Anil Mourya, Advocate For State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 28.02.2025 1. The petitioner who stand retired on the post of Assistant Health Supervisor on 31.08.2004 has filed this writ petition under Article MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.03.25 10:36:51 +0530 2 226 of the Constitution of India on 07.01.2021 contending that since his date of retirement is 31.08.2004, as such, he is entitled to claim annual increment which is payable from 31.08.2003 to 01.09.2004. 2. Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner stood retired in the year 2004, therefore, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be given retrospective effect as judgment is always prospective. This issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400/2023 in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 decided on 20.02.2025 wherein it has held as under:- “We are inclined to dispose of the present miscellaneous applications directing that Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the order dated 06.09.2024 will be treated as final directions. We are, however, of the opinion that Clause (d) of the order dated 06.09.2024 requires modification which shall now read as under: “(d) In case any retired employee filed an application for intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal/ High Courts/this Court, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable for the period of three years prior to the month in which the application for intervention/ impleadment/ writ petition/ original application was filed.” Further, clause (d) will not apply to the retired government employee who filed a writ petition/original application or an application for intervention before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this court after the judgment in “Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj”, as in such cases, clause (a) will apply. Recording the aforesaid, the miscellaneous applications are disposed of. Recording the aforesaid, the miscellaneous applications are disposed of. We, further, clarify that in case any excess payment has already been made, including arrears, such amount paid will not be recovered.” 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that Clause (b) will not 3 apply to the employees whose writ petitions/original applications are pending before the High Courts and the Tribunals/ Hon’ble Supreme Court after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Another vs. M. Siddaraj, as such Clause (a) will apply. The Clause (a) in the interim order dated 06.09.2024 reads as under:- “(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid.” 4. The record of the case would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner stood retired in the year 2004 and this petition has been filed in the year 2021 which is still pending therefore, Clause (c) as mentioned in the interim order dated 06.09.2024 will be applicable. The Clause (C) specific provides that the direction in (b) will not apply where the judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, if file is entertained by the appellate Court. In the present case no final order has been passed, therefore, the petitioner’s case is governed as per Clause (c) and the petitioner is not entitled to get one increment. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish