SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 7301

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KAMALESH KUMAR VERMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS/11266/2025



2026:CGHC:10114 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11266 of 2025 Kamalesh Kumar Verma S/o. Late Kuleshwar Prasad Verma Aged About 61 Years Posted As Assistant Grade - 2, Office Of Joint Director Agriculture, ALFIZA BAIG Durg, Division Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.02.27 ... Petitioner

11:27:32 +0530 versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio-Technology Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Director, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio- Technology Department, Mantralaya, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - Joint Director, Agriculture Department, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

4 - Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate For Respondents - State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

26/02/2026

1. With the consent of the parties, the case is heard finally.

2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the official letter no. 2025-26/824 dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Divisional Joint Director Agriculture, Durg, Division Durg (C.

G.) in the interest of justice.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and direction may kindly be issued to the respondent authorities to sanction and release the first annual increment to the petitioner from one year after joining in services i.e. from 01.04.1986 and the entire salary of petitioner may kindly be revised accordingly as per with other similarly situated employees, in the interest of justice.

10.3 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was given compassionate appointment vide order dated 01.04.1986. In the order of appointment there was a mention of clause that petitioner has to pass typing test within 18 months from the date of appointment. Petitioner has passed the typing test on 12.04.1987 and thereafter was also promoted on the post of Assistant Grade- II. He submits that petitioner became entitled for increment after one year from the date of appointment however, the said benefit was not extended to petitioner. He further submits that similarly situated petitioner has approached this court by filing of a writ petition bearing WPS No. 3099 of 2015 which was allowed in favor of petitioner vide order dated 23.08.2024. It is also submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner based on the order passed in Pawan Kumar Janghel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh petitions filed by similarly situated petitioners was also allowed vide order dated

20.02.2025 in case of Vikas Kumar Choubey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WPS No. 6463 of 2016 and connected writ petitions, therefore, this writ petition may also be allowed in similar terms.

4. Learned counsel for State submits that according to his instructions and also the facts of the case this petition is also identical to the facts of the case and case of Pawan Kumar Janghel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, he however submits that in the appointment order there was a mandatory clause for passing of typing test within the period of 18 months and petitioner was paid the fixed salary. He further submits that except the above fact otherwise in accordance with the instructions received the case of petitioner is also similar to that of Pawan Kumar Janghel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with this writ petition.

6. In c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top