Back
RAMESH SINHA, PARTH PRATEEM SAHU
Registrar General High Court of Chhattisgarh – Appellant
Versus
Fanendra Kumar Bisen S/o Late Soman Lal Bisen – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1.Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/ respondent nos. 2 & 3.
2.This writ appeal is presented by the appellant assailing the order dated 15.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 3617 of 2019, whereby the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein.
3.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 24.01.1992. The wife of the petitioner had undergone family planning operation (Tubectomy) on 29.07.1999. On account of the family planning operation the benefit of two advance increments has been granted to the petitioner vide order dated 23.08.1999. The petitioner got the above benefit till December, 2004. Subsequently vide order dated 19.01.2005, the petitioner promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000, but the benefit of advance increment was not extended to the petitione
An employee cannot claim further advance increments after promotion, as these increments are included in the basic pay upon promotion.
An employee is entitled to an increment if their juniors receive a lower pay, provided no undue advantage in promotion or pay scale is claimed.
An employee need not wait for twelve months from the fixation of his/her pay in the new scale for earning in the revised scale.
Point of Law : powers of Government of India, of Local Governments and of subordinate authorities to grant a premature increment to an officer are subject to limits up to which each such authority ca....
Recovery of authorized increments from pension is impermissible without due process; prior court rulings must be respected.
The entitlement to the benefit of one increment even after retirement, based on the interpretation of Rule 39 and the purpose of granting annual increment.
the relief claimed in the petition, even based on the judgment in the case of Dr B.M. Gupta, is not tenable in law as there is gross delay in approaching the Court even if presuming it to be similar ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
