1 2025:CGHC:42344 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2241 of 2021  Dr. Rekha Pandey W/o Shri N. K. Pandey Aged About 59 Years Occupation Service, Retired Principal, Higher Education Department, R/o B- 35,36 V I P Estate, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Commissioner Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Additional Director Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Principal Government D. B. Girls P. G. Collage, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For State : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21. 08.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside/quash the letter/order dated 30/12/2019 (Annexure P/1) and direct the respondents to pay five days salary to the petitioner. This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondents to calculate SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.25 14:10:50 +0530 2 the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner by adding one additional increment that she would have received on 01/07/2019 had she not retired on 30/06/2019. 10.3 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including costs of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed as an ad-hoc Assistant Professor on 14.09.1982, and her services were regularized in the year 1987. He would further submit that in the month of March 2019, the petitioner completed 36 years and 6 months of service, and therefore, she submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 30.03.2019 and requested the respondents to allow her application for voluntary retirement with effect from 30.06.2019. He would also submit that the application of the petitioner was accepted vide order dated 05.07.2019, and therefore, she is entitled for salary for 5 days, including one increment, which was due on 1st July, 2019. He would contend that though it was clearly indicated in the application for voluntary retirement that the same would be effective from 30.06.2019, but prior to the said date, no specific order was issued, and there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, would submit that in the application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner has specifically stated that she wanted to opt for voluntary retirement with effect from 30.06.2019 and her application was allowed with effect from 30.06.2019, though the order was issued on 05.07.2019; therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for salary of five days. With regard to one increment, he would contend that the petitioner may make a representation before the respondent authorities. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. The petitioner, after completion of 36 years and 6 months of service, moved an application for voluntary retirement on 30.03.2019 and intimated the respondent authorities that she has opted for voluntary retirement with effect from 30.06.2019. The application was allowed vide order dated 05.07.2019 with effect from 30.06.2019. As the application was allowed with effect from 30.06.2019 and the petitioner in her application had mentioned the date of voluntary retirement 30.06.2019, in my opinion, she is not entitled for the salary of five days. 6. With regard to one increment, which was due on 1st July, 2019, certainly the petitioner is entitled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. Versus C.P. Mundinamani and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 401, held that the Government employees cannot be denied the annual increment merely because the employee has retired on the very next day of earning the increment. The relevant para 17 reads as under:- “17. A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one-year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a timescale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (one year) with good conduct efficiently. Merely because the government servant has retired on the very next day, how can he be denied the annual increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to for rendering the 4 service with good conduct and efficiency in the preceding one year. 7. Considering the fact with regard to the facts stated in the aforesaid para and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claim of the petitioner with regard to one increment, which was due on 1st July, 2019, is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of one increment to the petitioner forthwith. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant