1 / 8 2025:CGHC:27005 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6386 of 2018 Smt. Girja Netam W/o Late J.S. Netam Aged About 60 Years Asstt. Grade III, c/o Chief Engineer Water Resources Department Mahanadi Godawari Basin Shankar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Srcretary Water Resources Department Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Mantralaya Naya Raipur 492002, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Mechanical Administrative officer O/o The Chief Engineer Water Resources Department Mahanadi Godavari Basin Raipur 492001 Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Mechanical Administrative officer O/o The Chief Engineer Water Resources Department Mahanadi Project Raipur 492001chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Engineer (Prabo.) O/o The Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. BP Rao, Advocate Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 / 8 For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J Order on Board 23/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Honble Court be pleased to accept the Writ Petition and be pleased to decide the Petitioners grievance. 10.2 That, the Honble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the 3 Members Committee Report/Order dated 26.2.2016 (P- 15) in respect of the present Petitioner in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Honble Court be pleased to pass an Order directing the Respondent No. 2 to sanction Annual Increment to the Petitioner one year after joining in Service i.e. with effect from 28.3.1981 till 23.6.1986 and further revision of Pay accordingly along with payment of Arrears with 10 percent Interest thereon at the earliest. 10.4 That, the Honble Court be pleased to pass any other Order or Direction deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice." 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she was appointed as Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 14.03.1980 and joined service on 28.03.1980. She was entitled to annual increment from 28.03.1981 but she was denied the said benefit until she passed 3 / 8 the Hindi typing examination. The petitioner passed the Hindi typing test on 09.12.1985 and was granted annual increments from 23.06.1986 onwards. However, based on the judgment and order of the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur and orders of this Court, the respondents released increments to some similarly situated employees after one year of their joining the service, irrespective of whether they passed the Hindi typing test within the stipulated time or not. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting the respondents to grant her annual increment after one year of her joining the service, but the respondents have not granted her annual increment with effect from 28.03.1981. Hence, this petition is filed for the following reliefs 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed in the Water Resource Department with a fixed pay of Rs.169 and her work and conduct were found to be satisfactory. Therefore, she should not be denied annual increment after one year of her joining the service merely on account of not passing the Hindi typing test. Normally, annual increments are drawn on the basis of past 11 months of satisfactory service of an employee. Further, F.R. 24 prescribes 4 / 8 that an increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. The respondents never issued any notice to the petitioner requiring her to pass the Hindi typing test or pointing out that the Hindi typing work remained pending or was attended to by other employees. From the date of her joining, the petitioner rendered only clerical duties and even after passing the Hindi typing test on 09.12.1985, she was never required to perform Hindi typing work in the office. In these circumstances, the condition of passing the Hindi typing test should not be the basis for granting increments. 4. He further submits that the condition in the appointment order that increment will be given one year after passing the Hindi typing examination will not be effective because there was no such provision in the MP Irrigation Department (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1969 or the relevant Recruitment Rules applicable to the petitioner. Similarly situated persons namely Maiyadeen Verma, B L Goyal and others of the Water Resources Department, who although did not pass the Hindi typing test within the prescribed period, were granted increments from one year after their joining the service. When the respondents have already granted annual increments to 5 / 8 employees on attaining the age of 40 years by exempting them from passing Hindi typing, it indicates that there is no correlation between passing the Hindi typing examination and release of annual increments. The petitioner is therefore entitled to increment after one year of her joining the service i.e. since 28.03.1981. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the matter of State of MP and others Vs. Ku. Ramani Bai Bhagat, 2013 MPLSR 31 (DB). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, opposing the prayer of the petitioner, submits that as per Recruitment Rules, 1972 of Annexure R/1, the petitioner is not entitled to increment before passing the typing test. The petitioner has been given the benefit of increment from 23.06.1986. The petitioner appeared in the typing examination held on 23.06.1985 and the result of the same was declared on 09.12.1985 in which the petitioner was declared pass. Therefore, the benefit of increment has been rightly granted to the petitioner from 23.06.1986. This petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6 / 8 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 14.03.1980 and she joined service on 28.03.1980. In the appointment order (Annexure P/1), Condition No.1 reads as under: "1. उन्हें नियुक्ति की रीख की बाद 2 वर्ष की भीरी म०प्र० शीघ्रलेख मद्रलेख परिरीर्षद से निहेंन्द# मद्रलेख की परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण कीरी हें'गी, इसे अवधि, की भीरी जबा की व निहेंन्द# मद्रलेख की परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण हें. कीरीगी बा की उसे निम् श्रेर्ण लिलेनिपकी एव3 मद्रलेख की पद की वम की न्यु4म व था उसे परी धिमले वले अन्यु भीत्ती हें धिमलेगी ।" 5. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner passed the Hindi typing test on 09.12.1985 and was granted increment from 23.06.1986. 6. The petitioner has filed Annexures P/3 to P/5 i.e. orders dated 23.06.1986, 04.07.2006, 11.10.2006 and 04.11.2006 issued by the Water Resources Department, Raipur which show that several employees were granted annual increments after one year of joining their services irrespective of whether they passed the Hindi typing test, which they cleared subsequently. Therefore, it is clear from these orders that similarly situated employees who passed the Hindi typing test much after joining their services have already been given the benefit of annual increment upon completion of one year of service from the date of joining. 7. The Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Ku. Ramani Bai Bhagat (supra) observed in paragraph 13 of its order as under: "13. The issue regarding grant of regular increment has been considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and another Vs. Rameshchandra Sharma and another, 1987 JLJ 755. In the said judgment, this Court has held as thus: 7 / 8 If anything more has to be said to hold that the defence was wholly meritless and the poor and petty employee had to make a wild cry in the wild wilderness, I have to merely refer to F.R. 24 on which the claim of the plaintiff was founded; and I quote: F.R. 24. Withholding of increments. An increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment may be withheld from a Government servant by a local Government, or by any authority to whom the local Government may delegate this power under Rule 6, if his conduct has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding authority shall state the period for which it is withheld and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments. The only power which is vested in the Government to withhold increment of a Government servant is to be found in the aforesaid statutory rule and it is trite law that the power must be exercised subject to the condition by which it is circumscribed. When conduct of a Government servant has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory then an order withholding his increment may be passed. In this case, admittedly, the situation is entirely different. Indeed, defence taken is wholly irrelevant to the statutory provision aforesaid. It has never been the case of the State either here or in any of the Courts below that the work of the plaintiff had not been good or satisfactory; merely, on the basis of a circular which could not, and indeed, did not bind the plaintiff, he is sought to be saddled with a disqualification as is not contemplated under the aforesaid statutory provision. As I have held above, it was not the condition of service of employment of the plaintiff/respondent manifested, whether in the order dated 30-7-1971 or the subsequent order dated 9-3- 1972, that he will not draw the time scale salary, but he will draw a fixed salary of 90/- till he had passed typing 8 / 8 examination. In Indrasen Jain (supra), I had taken the view with reference, albeit, to the sister provision F.R. 25 that there can be no unreasonable restrictions imposed, whether by executive order or statutory provision in the enjoyment of the right to time scale salary of the Government servant because such an action is interdicted to Article 16. If some more has to be said, mere mention of Olga Tellis (1) is sufficient." 8. In the present case also, it is evident from Annexures P/3 to P/5 that the respondent authorities have sanctioned annual increment to some of their similarly situated employees though they had not passed the Hindi typing test at that time, but the same has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that she had not passed the Hindi typing test and was granted annual increment only from 23.06.1986 after passing the Hindi typing test on 09.12.1985, which was intimated to the department by the petitioner. 9. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that as per Annexure R/1 the petitioner is not entitled to increment from back date, it is clear from Annexure R/1 that there is no condition in these rules that only after passing the Hindi typing test an employee would be entitled to increment. 10. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and law, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to annual increment after one year of her joining the service i.e. since 28.03.1981. 11. The respondents are directed to calculate the arrears of increments and make payment of the same to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim