1 CGHC010089532021 2026:CGHC:32723 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2053 of 2021 1 - Suresh Chandra Soni, S/o Late Shri Ram Chandra Soni, Aged About 68 Years Retired - Assistant Conservator Of Forest, Bilaspur Division, R/o - H I G - 12, Parijat Castle, Ring Road -2, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur - Division, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Accountant General, Office Of The Accountant General, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Ravi Bhagat, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Amandeep Singh, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.07.2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari etc. against the respondent authorities for granting the Krammonati to the petitioner pursuant to State Government orders, w.e.f. 1.3.2003, instead of 22.8.2008. 10.2 That the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari etc. against the respondent authorities for granting the annual increment that has been denied to the petitioner as he retired from service on 30th June 2013 one month prior from date of implementation of the annual increment i.e. 30th July 2013. 10.3 That the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari etc. against the respondent authorities for recalculation of pension sheet (Annexure- P/1) consequent to the reliefs granted as mentioned in Para 10.1 and Para 10.2 of the petition. 10.4 That the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari etc. against the respondent authorities for granting arrears of salary with 18% interest, arrears of pension with 18% interest, arrears of retiral dues with 18% interest from the actual date of payments ought to have done to the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief whatsoever, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Forest Range Officer under the 3 respondents on 7.3.1979 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest vide order dated 24.7.2007. He would submit that the petitioner retired from services on 30.6.2013. It is argued that the petitioner was entitled to receive the Kramonnati Vetanman benefit with effect from 1.3.2003 whereas, he was granted the said benefit with effect from 22.8.2008. He would submit that the petitioner had completed 24 years of service on 1.3.2003 and therefore, he was eligible and entitled to get the said benefit from the said date pursuant to circulars dated 13.6.2012 & 10.10.2012. It is further argued that as the petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2013, he is entitled for one annual increment. According to the law laid down by 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. He would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make a detailed representation before respondent No.1 and in turn, the respondent authorities may be directed to decide the same in an objective manner within the stipulated time. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for Kramonnati Vetanman benefit with effect from 1.3.2003 as per circular dated 22.8.2008. They would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 4 5. In the matter of C.P. Mundinamani (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that 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. 6. Having considered the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty to make a detailed representation before respondent No.1 and in turn, the said authorities are directed to decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi