1 2025:CGHC:4833 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4799 of 2023 • Rajesh Choubey S/o Ganesh Prasad Choubey, Aged About 61 Years Upper Division Teacher, Vivekanand Higher Sec. School, Pandri, R/o D-408, Maitri Nagar, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus • Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/01/2025 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities for one annual increment in the last year of the service of petitioner. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the respondents authorities for the grant of pensionary benefits and other retiral dues. 10.3 May kindly be pleased to allow any other relief as deem fit.” 2. Brief facts of the case is that, the petitioner was appointed as U.D.T. at Vivekanand Higher Sec. School, Pandri, Raipur (C. G. on 27/02/1984, and since after reaching the age of retirement, the petitioner retired from the service on 30.06.2022. It is submitted that, the financial year in the service of the petitioner gets completed on 01st July of every year; hence, the petitioner is entitled for the Annual Grade Increment for the last year of his service which is due and payable to him as well as the pensionary benefits and other retiral dues. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction for grant of 3 Annual grade increment, pensionary benefits and other retiral dues. 3. The relevant facts in brief is that the petitioner herein of writ petition being considered and decided today the petitioner was working under the Government of Chhattisgarh and who has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on the 30th of June. According to the petitioner herein the respondent- Government while granting the post retiral benefits including the pensionary benefits ought to have counted the same by granting the increment which the petitioner would have been entitled for w.e.f. 1st of July of the year in which the petitioner retired from service. 4. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has filed the writ petition the annual increment that fell due for the entire year that he has worked preceding the date of retirement and which he is otherwise entitled for under the service rules. Therefore, while quantifying the post retiral benefits including the pensionary benefits that benefit of one additional increment ought to had been also taken into account. 5. The State Government on the other hand took a stand that since the petitioner stood superannuated w.e.f. 30th of June of the year and on the 1st of July, since he was not on the rolls of the State Government as their employee, the benefit which was to be 4 extended w.e.f. 1st of July cannot be granted to the petitioner for the said reason. In order to clarify the same, the State Government had issued the impugned circular dated 15.07.2020. The said circular had been passed by the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh in the light of a judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in WP No. 15732/2017. The stand of the respondent-State of Chhattisgarh was that the said judgment of the Madras High Court cannot be implemented in a straight jacket formula and that it has to be accepted to be a judgment in persona and not a judgment in rem and moreover that would not be binding on the service Rules governing the State of Chhattisgarh w.e.f. 1st of July cannot be granted to the petitioners for the said reason. In order to clarify the same, the State Government had issued the impugned circular dated 15.07.2020. The said circular had been passed by the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh in the light of a judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in WP No. 15732/2017. The stand of the respondent-State of Chhattisgarh was that the said judgment of the Madras High Court cannot be implemented in a straight jacket formula and that it has to be accepted to be a judgment in persona and not a judgment in rem and moreover that would not be binding on the service Rules governing the State of Chhattisgarh. 5 6. The issue as to whether the employees who have retired on the 30th of June would be entitled for the increment which fell due w.e.f. 1st of July of the year they retire was a subject matter of dispute before various High Courts in the country. Many of the High Courts have allowed the writ petitions and few of the High Courts have rejected the petitions. The entire issue thereafter traveled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others” reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401. In the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in very categorical terms held that once the petitioner has earned an increment on completing one year of service, he cannot be denied the benefit of increment, which in other words also means that if on the date of retirement, which in all these writ petitions being 30th of June, if they have earned an increment of having worked for 12 months (one year) preceding to the date of retirement, they under no circumstances can be denied the benefit of increment while quantifying the post retiral benefits. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in deciding the said case has affirmed the orders of the High Courts which had allowed the writ petitions in favour of the employees and have set-aside the orders of those High Courts, which had dismissed the writ petitions categorically holding that the employees, who stood 6 retired from 30th of June and where the increment fell due on the 1st of July would become entitle for their post retiral benefits and consequential monetary benefits by adding that one increment. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon circular dated 27.03.2024 in which the State Government has held that the employees will be granted benefit of one increment even in case where the employees retired on 30th of June. 8. In the course of deliberation, the learned State counsel fairly conceded the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the aforesaid judgment has by now laid to rest the issue as regards the entitlement of one increment to those employees who stood retired on the 30th of June. However the State counsel submits that under the Rules, Guidelines and Circulars governing the Rules, there is system of payment of annual increment on two different dates in an year, for administrative and financial convenience, that is w.e.f. 1st of January of every year and w.e.f. 1st of July every year. 9. It was the contention of the State counsel that for the employees who stood appointed between the 1st of January to the 31st of May, all such employees would be granted increment from the 1st of January as per Rule 17 of the Finance Rules. In other words the State counsel intended that for the employees who stood retired prior to 1st of July, they would be entitled for gratuity w.e.f. 7 1st of January and for the employees who stands retired subsequent to the 1st of July till the 31st of December, they would be entitled for increment from the 1st of July. 10. It was the further submission made by the learned State counsel that now in the context of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “C.P. Mundinamani” (supra) all these writ petitions can be safely disposed of, subject to scrutiny of the State Government, verifying whether the petitioners herein who stood retired on the 30th of June have been granted increment on the 1st of January of the year of retirement or not, and if they have not been granted the increment, the petitioners shall be granted the benefit of the increment which they would have received otherwise on the 1st of July of the year in which they stood retired. 11. 11. Given the said submission by the learned State counsel and also in the light of the judgment recently rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court laying to rest the entire issue so far as granting of increment to persons who stood retired on the 30th of June, the present bunch of writ petitions stand disposed of firstly by quashing the circular dated 15.07.2020, which in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “C.P. Mundinamani” (supra) would not any further be sustainable and the same therefore stands quashed. 8 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. 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 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 this writ petition is being allowed particularly in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court each of the petitioner would be entitled for the arrears of the difference of amount from the date of retirement onwards. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat