1 CGHC010222302024 2026:CGHC:32584 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3843 of 2024 Krishna Kumar Yadav S/o Late Bhanwar Singh Yadav, Aged About 55 Years Occupation Lagal Inspector At S.E.C.L., Raigarh Area District Raigarh C.G. Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., A Company Duly Registered Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956, Through The Chairman -Cum- Managing Director, Seepat Road, Pb-60, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalffields Ltd. Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - General Manager (P And A), South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Industrial Relations Department, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 4 - Area Personnel Manager, Raigarh Area, Secl, Po Chhote Atarmuda, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.N. Nande, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 29/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition calling in question the action of the respondents in denying him annual increments from the RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.29 18:02:15 +0530 2 date of his initial appointment while fixing his pay upon reinstatement pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. No.2076 of 1999. The petitioner also seeks consequential revision of his pay and service benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on 19.04.1996 under the rehabilitation policy of the respondent-Company. His services were terminated by order dated 17.04.1999, which came to be quashed by this Court in W.P. No.2076 of 1999. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated in service. It is submitted that although the petitioner was reinstated, while fixing his pay the respondents failed to grant annual increments by treating his service as continuous from the date of his initial appointment. It is contended that the judgment of this Court setting aside the termination has attained finality, as the same has never been challenged. Learned counsel would further submit that even the additional affidavit filed pursuant to the order dated 16.07.2026 is conspicuously silent on the specific issue as to why annual increments were denied. According to him, once the order of termination has been quashed and the petitioner has been reinstated, he would ordinarily be entitled to continuity of service and consequential service benefits, except back wages, unless specifically denied by the Court. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to annual increments from the date of his initial appointment. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the earlier judgment merely quashed the order of termination and did not direct grant of continuity of service or consequential monetary benefits. 3 It is further submitted that on reinstatement the petitioner's pay was correctly fixed under the prevailing NCWA-VII Wage Agreement and the petitioner accepted the same without protest. It is also contended that the present claim, having been raised after nearly seventeen years, is barred by delay and laches, acquiescence and constructive res judicata. The respondents further contend that the pay fixation chart relied upon by the petitioner is a self-prepared document raising disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's order of termination dated 17.04.1999 was quashed by this Court and the petitioner was thereafter reinstated in service. It is equally undisputed that the said judgment has attained finality. 6. This Court, while considering the matter earlier, had specifically required the respondents to file an affidavit explaining the petitioner's contention that although he was reinstated pursuant to the judgment of this Court, annual increments on the pay to which he was entitled on reinstatement had not been extended to him. Pursuant thereto, an additional counter affidavit has been filed. 7. A perusal of the additional counter affidavit shows that the respondents have primarily raised objections relating to delay and laches, acquiescence, constructive res judicata and maintainability of the writ 4 petition. They have also sought to justify the initial pay fixation made upon the petitioner's reinstatement. However, the affidavit does not satisfactorily answer the specific issue for which it was directed to be filed, namely, the legal basis for denying annual increments to the petitioner upon his reinstatement pursuant to the judgment of this Court. Apart from asserting that the petitioner accepted the pay fixation, the respondents have failed to point out any statutory provision, service rule or clause of the applicable NCWA which specifically disentitles the petitioner from earning annual increments upon such reinstatement. 8. Once the order of termination stood quashed and the petitioner was reinstated in service pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the respondents were under an obligation to give effect to the said judgment in its true letter and spirit. If the respondents intended to deny annual increments notwithstanding the reinstatement, it was incumbent upon them to demonstrate the statutory or contractual basis for such denial. Except relying upon the absence of an express direction regarding consequential benefits in the earlier judgment, no such legal basis has been shown. Therefore, the action of the respondents in denying annual increments cannot be sustained. 9. As regards the objection relating to delay, laches and constructive res judicata, this Court is of the opinion that the grievance raised by the petitioner pertains to the fixation of pay and denial of annual increments, the consequences of which continue to affect his pay and other service benefits. Such a grievance gives rise to recurring civil consequences. Moreover, the respondents themselves considered the petitioner's 5 representations and rejected the same only in the year 2024. Therefore, the present writ petition cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of delay, laches or constructive res judicata. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 11. Consequently, the respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner afresh by extending the benefit of annual increments from the date he became entitled in accordance with the applicable service rules/wage agreement and keeping in view the effect of the judgment passed in W.P. No.2076 of 1999. If upon such re-fixation any consequential monetary benefits become payable, the same shall also be released to the petitioner. It is clarified that this order shall not be construed as directing payment of back wages for the period the petitioner remained out of service. 12. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If, upon such exercise, any monetary benefits are found payable, the same shall also be released to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul