1 CGHC010122922020 2026:CGHC:38388 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2215 of 2020 1 - Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Lakhan Lal Sharma Aged About 66 Years Occupation-Service, Retired Block Extension And Training Officer, Office Of Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bilaspur, R/o Opposite Congress Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary General Administrative Department, State Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director Health Services, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Commissioner Health And Family Welfare Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - District Treasury Officer District Treasury Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Additional Treasury Officer District Treasury Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 31.08.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:- 10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case of the petitioner. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of the annual increment to the petitioner which was applicable from 01/07/2016 along with an interest of 18% per annum from 01/07/2016 till the date of actual payment. 10.3. Cost of the proceedings. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.09.01 11:31:41 +0530 2 10.4. Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was born on 01.07.1954 and, accordingly, attained the age of superannuation on 01.07.2016. However, the respondents treated him as having retired from service on 30.06.2016 from the post of Block Extension and Training Officer. He submits that the petitioner had rendered service for the entire preceding year and had earned the annual increment which fell due on 01.07.2016. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the said annual increment. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director (Administration and Human Resources), KPTCL & Others v. C.P. Mundinamani & Others1. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was rightly retired from service on 30.06.2016, upon attaining the age of superannuation, and that the annual increment falling due on 01.07.2016 could not be granted to him as he was no longer in service on the said date. He further submits that the claim of the petitioner for grant of the said increment and consequential revision of pension and retiral dues is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. It is not in dispute that the annual increment was due to the petitioner on 01.07.2016; however, the petitioner was retired from service on 30.06.2016. Consequently, the said increment was not granted to him, which has been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 6. The issue is no longer res integra and stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter C.P. Mundinamani (supra), wherein it has been held that merely because a Government servant retired on the very next day on which the annual increment became due, the same cannot be a ground to deny him the benefit of such increment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 17. 20 to 23, has held 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 1 (2023) 14 SCC 411 3 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 time scale, 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 service with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding one year. 20. Similar view has also been expressed by different High Courts, namely, the Gujarat High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Orissa High Court and the Madras High Court. As observed hereinabove, to interpret Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations in the manner in which the appellants have understood and/or interpretated would lead to arbitrariness and denying a government servant the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned while rendering specified period of service with good conduct and efficiently in the last preceding year. It would be punishing a person for no fault of him. As observed hereinabove, the increment can be withheld only by way of punishment or he has not performed the duty efficiently. Any interpretation which would lead to arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness should be avoided. If the 4 interpretation as suggested on behalf of the appellants and the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is accepted, in that case it would tantamount to denying a government servant the annual increment which he has earned for the services he has rendered over a year subject to his good behaviour. The entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day. 21 In the present case the word “accrue” should be understood liberally and would mean payable on the succeeding day. Any contrary view would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness and denying a government servant legitimate one annual increment though he is entitled to for rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiently and therefore, such a narrow interpretation should be avoided. 22. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria (supra); the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal (supra); and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra). We do not approve the contrary view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Accountant- General, Andhra Pradesh (supra) and the decisions of the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Pavithran (O.P.(CAT) No. 111/2020 decided on 22.11.2022) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in 5 the case of Hari Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020). 23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani (Supra), the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of one annual increment to the petitioner, which fell due on 01.07.2016, and consequently re-fix his pension and other retiral dues accordingly. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any interest on the consequential monetary benefits, as no such interest was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti