1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3948 of 2021 1 - Manohar Lal Kurre S/o Late Shri Ram Singh Kurre, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village - Ramtala, Post - Bilaigarh, Police Station And Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Accountant General, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, And Pension, Raipur Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - The District Education Officer, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. P. Sahu, Advocate For State / Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6. : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional AG For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 08/10/2025 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs : 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ order, thereby directing the respondent authorities to extend the benefits of annual increment in favour of petitioner for the period of 01.06.2019 to 30.06.2020, in accordance with law. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2. Facts of the case which emerges is that by way of the instant writ petition is not preferred against any particular order, but the same is being preferred against the illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of respondent authorities in not extending the benefits of annual increment. It is submitted that upon attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner has been retired from service with effect from 30.06.2020 and due to which, the respondent authorities have denied the petitioner from extending the benefit of annual increment that would be payable to him for the period between 01.06.2019 to 30.06.2020, as the date of annual increment payable to the petitioner is of 1st July. It is submitted that the identically placed employees filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court was kind enough to dispose of the writ petition and the case of petitioner is covered by the said order of the Hon'ble Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a Lecturer under the respondent No. 1 department and upon attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner has been retired from service with effect from 30.06.2020. He submits that as the annual increment with the petitioner is likely to get on 1st July on his retirement, has not been granted to him therefore, this writ petition has been filed. He 3 submits that the issue is no longer res integra in light of judgment of this Court in WPS No. 3036 of 2020 and connected matters ( Pitambar Singh Nayak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) vide order dated 10.07.2023. Therefore, this writ petition may be allowed and the relief as claimed may be granted. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the legal preposition as put forth by the petitioner. 5. This Court while deciding the case of Pitambar Singh Nayak (supra) relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401 held as under:- “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. That 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.” 6. In light of above, in terms of the said order, the writ petition is also disposed of. The respondents authorities shall calculate the monitory gain and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of 60 days, if that has not been already paid. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan