1 WPS No. 3759 of 2016 2025:CGHC:1009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3759 of 2016  Akhilesh Kumar Shukla S/o Late Shri R.K. Shukla, aged about 62 years, retired Joint Director Prosecution R/o House No 56, Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhwan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Under Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. For State-Respondents :- Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.10 16:11:50 +0530 2 WPS No. 3759 of 2016 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 07/01/2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking Secretariat allowance from the date of his posting i.e. 31.08.2010 upto date of his retirement i.e. 30.11.2015. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that by order dated 31.08.2010 he was attached in the Secretariat on the post of Deputy Director Prosecution, and he retired on 30.11.2015 from the post of Joint Director Prosecution, but he was not given Secretariat allowance as per the State Government order dated 28/29.06.2005. However, it is the case of the State/respondent that since as per circular dated 28/29.06.2005, the consent of the Department of General Administration (for short “GAD”) has not been obtained, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the secretariat allowance. 3. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that secretariat allowance has been denied on the ground that the consent of GAD has not been obtained whereas, he had no option except to join his duties and, therefore, his services were attached with Secretariat by order dated 31.08.2010, otherwise he had to 3 WPS No. 3759 of 2016 face the disciplinary action. He would further submit that it is for Home Department to get the consent of GAD and thereafter, attach the petitioner with the Secretariat and, as such, he is entitled for the secretariat allowance as per the order dated 28/29.06.2005. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that since the consent of GAD has not been obtained, therefore, petitioner has rightly been declined the benefit of secretariat allowance. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Admittedly, as per order dated 28/29.06.2005 issued by the State Government all the officers/employees who are attached with the Secretariat will be entitled for the Secretariat allowance, subject to attachment is consented by GAD. In the case at hand, the petitioner was attached with the Secretariat by order of Home Department dated 31.08.2010 on the post of Deputy Director Prosecution, but admittedly the consent of GAD has not been obtained, which was an obligation on the part of the Home 4 WPS No. 3759 of 2016 Department before attaching the services of the petitioner with the Secretariat, though that has not been done. However, once the order has been passed by Home Department, the petitioner has no option except to join the attached post in the Secretariat. It is not the fault of the petitioner, if the consent has not been obtained by Home Department from GAD for attachment of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has been attached by order of the Government, Home Department, dated 31.08.2010, the petitioner is entitled for the Secretariat allowance for the entire period of his service i.e. from the date of his joining i.e. 20.09.2010 upto 30.11.2015 i.e. the date of his retirement. As such, respondent No.1 directed to grant secretariat allowance to the petitioner for the aforesaid period. 7. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Copy of order dated 28/29.06.2005 be kept on record. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit