1 2025:CGHC:41090 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9419 of 2019 1 - Badri Prasad Chandrakar (Died) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 23.07.2025 1.1 - Smt. Chandrika Chandrakar W/o Late Badri Prasad Chandrakar, Aged About 60 Years R/o Naya Kumharbhatha, Infront Of Shri Krishna Mandir, Ma- hasamund, Distt Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Through Its Man- ager Director, Office At First Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Telibandha, Raipur, Dis- trict Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Di- rector, Office At Habib Ganj, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh., District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh --- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Adv. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer. Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.08.14 17:27:59 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board 12/08/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 17-07-2019 (Annexure P-1) and 31-08-2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by the re- spondent No.2. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to di- rect the respondent authorities to pass necessary order for grant of annual increments to the petitioner for the period from 17-11-1984 to 05-07-1990 and from 1999 to 2000. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the original petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Conductor in erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vide order (Annexure P-3) on 1-10-1983. Subsequently, vide order dated 17-11-1984, he was dis- missed from service, which was challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court, Raipur under the MP Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and vide order (Annexure P-4) dated 25-5-1990 passed in Case No. 215/84/MPIR Act, learned Labour Court, Raipur allowed the applica- tion of the petitioner, without back wages. Vide order (Annexure P-5) dated 3-7-1990, he was re-instated in service. After reorganization of 3 State of MP, the petitioner’s services were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and he was posted alike other employees in CG Infra- structure Development Corporation. Ultimately, vide Annexure P-6 dated 4-6-2019, petitioner was superannuated with effect from 29-6- 2019. Learned counsel further submits that, though the petitioner was out of service because of his dismissal from 17-11-1984 to 3-7-1990, but he was reinstated in compliance of order Annexure P-4 dated 25- 5-1990 passed by the Labour Court, Raipur, therefore, he ought to have been paid increment for the period of his termination. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State would submits that since the petitioner was not in service after his dismissal from 17- 11-1984 till 3-7-1990, hence he is not entitled to get any increment for the said period. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner herself that, the petitioner was out of service from 17-11-1984 to 3-7-1990 because of dismissal from the post of Conductor. Though vide order (Annexure P- 4) dated 25-5-1990 passed by the Labour Court, he was re-instated in his employment on 3-7-1990, but learned Labour Court itself has clearly ordered that, the petitioner is not entitled to get back wages. It has not been disclosed by the petitioner that, whether the order An- nexure P-4 dated 25-5-1990 was challenged by him or not. The relief, which has already been declined to be granted by the Labour Court, cannot be granted in instant writ petition (service). If the petitioner was anxious to seek relief, sought for by him, then he has to file appeal 4 etc. against Annexure P-4. 6. Since the petitioner was terminated from his service for the said claimed period i.e. 17-11-2019 to 3-7-1984, therefore, he is not entitled to get the relief, sought for by him. Hence, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak