1 2025:CGHC:61763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2975 of 2020 J. P. Padwar, S/o Late Shri Vishram Das Padwar, Aged About 62 Years Additional Director Prosecution (Retired On 30.06.2020), R/o H I G 10, Amarkantak House, Opposite Kanir Nagar Police Station, Kabir Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Under Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Director, Directorate Of Public Prosecution, Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Joint Director, Funds Account And Pension, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. District Treasury Officer, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate. For Res/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer, SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 19.12.2025 1) This writ petition has been filed on account of inaction on the part of the respondent/Authority in not giving the annual increment to the petitioner Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2025.12.19 16:58:30 +0530 2 after completion of one year before the retirement as he was retired on 30.06.2020. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was retired from the post of Additional Director, Directorate of Public Prosecution, Raipur/respondent No.3 on 30.06.2020. He submits that petitioner has been deprived of annual increment which ought to have been given by the Authorities after completion of one year before retirement. He also submits that at this juncture that this petition may be disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Department with regard to the notional increment to the employees who retire from the services on 30th June/ 31st December for the purpose of calculating their pensionary benefits. He would further submit that recently in this regard in the matter of Union of India & Anr. vs. M. Siddaraj {Miscellaneous Application Diary No.2400 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023 and other connected cases}, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.02.2025 had given various directions and it has been clarified that the benefit of notional increment for pension purposes shall be extended to the officials retiring/retired on 30th June or 31st December. He further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also made certain an interim direction. For the ready reference the same are reproduced hereunder:- "We had passed the following interim order dated 06.09.2024, the operative portion of which reads as under: (a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. 3 Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid. (b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be paid. (c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the appellate court. (d) In case any retired employee has filed any application for intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable from the month in which the application for intervention/ impleadment was filed.” 3) Learned counsel further referred to the aforesaid judgment where it has been observed that clause (d) will not apply to the retirement government employee who filed a writ petition/original application or an application for intervention before the Central Administration/High Courts/Supreme Court after the judgment in Union of India and Anr Vs. M. Siddaraj (Supra) as in such cases, clause (a) will apply. He also submits that similar relief has also been extended to the other petitioner by this Court in WPS No.213/2020 (R. N. Sharma Vs. State of CG and Ors) vide order dated 09.12.2025. 4) In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in terms of order dated 09.12.2025 passed by this Court, suitable direction may be issued and pension of the petitioner may be revised by 4 extending the benefit of fixation of notional increment for the pensionary benefits. 5) Learned State counsel would not oppose the aforesaid legal proposition. 6) Having considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and considering the limited relief has been sought by the petitioner, it is directed that the respondents/Authorities shall re-examine the case of the petitioner in light of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M. Siddaraj (supra) with regard to the grant of notional increment for the employees who retired from the services on 30th June/31st December and if the petitioner files a fresh representation within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order, the Authorities shall examine the same and take appropriate decision within regard to such increment within an outer limit of 120 days from the date of receipt of such representation. 7) Office of the Advocate General is also directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Authority for information and its compliance. 8) With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay