2026:CGHC:4121 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 804 of 2026

1 - Krishna Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri Gyasi Lal Mishra Aged About 67 Years Retired Executive Engineer, Resident Of Q. No. 12/250, Koteshwar Nagar Kota, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, --- Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Finance Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Water Resources, Secretary Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District-

Raipur (C.G.)

3 - The Director Directorate Of Treasury And Accounts Block- A, First Floor,indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)

4 - The Divisional Joint Director Divisional Treasury Accounts And Pension Division, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

5 - The Superintending Engineer Mahanadi Jalashey Pariyojna Bandh Mandal Rudri, District- Dhamtari (C.G.)

--- Respondent(s)

(The Cause Title is taken from CIS system)

For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Chaki, Advocate For State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, P.L.

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

23/01/2026

1. Heard.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for grant of benefit of one annual increment while fixing the pension and other retiral dues, as despite rendering full one year of service, the petitioner was not allowed annual increment only because he had retired on 30th June of the respective year.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2021 and he would be entitled for annual increment to be added in his salary for the purpose of computing last drawn salary which was to be added on 01.07.2021 as the date of annual increment payable to the petitioner is 1st July, though this Court earlier in WPS No.8945/2019 vide order dated 05.11.2019 has directed the State Authorities to consider the said aspect, taking into consideration the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in P.Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and Others passed in WP No. 15732/2017 but respondent No.2 has declined to add one annual increment which became due on 01.07.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that identical issue came up before this High Court in WPS No.3036 of 2020, Pitambar Singh Nayak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others connected matters, in which, following was observed at paras 6 and 7 which read thus :-

“6. The issue as to whether the employees who have retired on the 30th of June would be entitled for the increment which fell due w.e.f. 1st of July of the year they retire was a subject matter of dispute before various High Courts in the country. Many of the High Courts have allowed the writ petitions and few of the High Courts have rejected the petitions. The entire issue thereafter traveled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others” reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401. In the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in very categorical terms held that once the petitioner has earned an increment on completing one year of service, he cannot be denied the benefit of increment, which in other words also means that if on the date of retirement, which in all these writ petitions being 30th of June, if they have earned an increment of having worked for 12 months (one year) preceding to the date of retirement, they under no circumstances can be denied the benefit of increment while quantifying the post retiral benefits.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in deciding the said case has affirmed the orders of the High Courts which had allowed the writ petitions in favour of the employees and have set-aside the orders of those High Courts, which had dismissed the writ petitions categorically holding that the employees, who stood retired from 30th of June and where the increment fell due on the 1st