1 2025:CGHC:44435 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5069 of 2022 1 - Saulal Ratre S/o Shri Shyam Lal Ratre Aged About 63 Years Retired Assistant Internal Account Examiner And Tax Officer Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur R/o Village Takhatpur P.S. Takhatpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh General Administration Department Govt. Employee Kalyan Shakha Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Panchayat And Village Development Department Naya Raipur Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Bilaspur Distt Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur Dist. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Deputy Director Panchayat Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Bilaspur Distt Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None. For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board NIRMALA RAO 2 01. 09.2025 1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner even when the case is taken up for hearing in the second round. 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Internal Audit & Taxation Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Thakatpur. He was superannuated on 30.6.2021 on completion of 62 years of age. It is further pleaded that an annual increment was due on 1st July, 2021, but the benefit has not been extended. It is also pleaded that this has affected the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. 4. With regard to one increment, which was due on 1st July, 2021, certainly the petitioner is entitled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. Versus C.P. Mundinamani and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 401, held that the Government employees cannot be denied the annual increment merely because the employee has retired on the very next day of earning the increment. The relevant para 17 reads as under:- “17. A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one-year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a timescale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (one year) with 3 good conduct efficiently. Merely because the government servant has retired on the very next day, how can he be denied the annual increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to for rendering the service with good conduct and efficiency in the preceding one year. 5. Considering the facts stated in the aforesaid para and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claim of the petitioner with regard to one increment, which was due on 1st July, 2021, is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of one increment to the petitioner forthwith. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. 7. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the petitioner. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi