Smt. Saraswati Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:8735

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 6666 of 2018

¶6

1 - Smt. Saraswati Verma W/o Late M.L. Verma Aged About 57 Years Assistt. Grade-Iii, C/o Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Godawari Basin, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Fesources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Mechanical Administrative Officer O/o The Chief Engineer, Water Resouces Department, Mahanadi Godavari Basin, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - The Mechanical Administrative Officer O/o The Chief Engineer Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Project, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Engineer (Probo.) O/o The Engineer-In-Chief Water Resources Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. P. Rao, Adv For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiya, Dy. G. A.

¶13

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

18/02/2026

¶16

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following relief(s) :-

¶17

2

¶18

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to accept the writ petition and

¶19

pleased to decide the petitioner’s grievance.

¶20

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the 3 Member’s Committee Report/ Order dated 26.02.2016 (P-14) in respect to the present petitioner in the interest of justice.

¶21

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an Order, directing the Respondent No.2 to sanction Annual Increment to the Petitioner one year after joining in service w.e.f. 15.06.1991 till 24.10.2002 and further revision of pay accordingly along with payment of arrears with 10% interest thereon at the earliest.

¶22

10.4 that, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass any other order or direction deem fit and proper and in the interest of justice.

¶23

Facts of the case reflect that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade III vide Order dated 02.06.1990. Petitioner joined in service on 15.06.1990 and is entitled for Increment w.e.f. 15.06.1991, but she has been denied for Annual Increments as she did not pass Hindi Typing Examination till attaining 40 years of age. On the basis of Judgment and Orders of Hon'ble S.A.T. Jabalpur, and this Hon'ble Court, the Respondents released Increments to some of similarly situated employees after one year of their Service irrespective of passing or not passing Hindi Typing Examination in time. The Gwalior Bench of Hon'ble M.P. High Court, on 10.7.2012 while dismissing the two Writ Appeals preferred by State Government held that the denial of Increments was not in conformity to M.P. Irrigation Department (NonGazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1969 and contrary to

¶24

3

¶25

Fundamental Rules 24. The facts of those cases are identical to the case of the Petitioner herein. In view of aforesaid legal pronouncement, the Petitioner also submitted her representation along with another requesting the Respondents to grant Annual Increment to her from one year of joining in service. During pendency of the said representation, another identical Petitioner approached the Hon'ble Court and filed WPS 3507/2015 and sought Justice. The Hon'ble Court vide its Order dated 30.09.2015 directed the Petitioner to submit a fresh Representation and also directed the Respondents to decide the same by speaking order on its own merit within stipulated time of 3 Months. The Petitioner accordingly submitted her fresh Representation on 19.08.2016 but vide order dated 26.02.2016 (Annexure P-14) rejected by the respondents.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 02.06.1990 (Annexure P-1) on the post of Assistant Grade-III with the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. He submits that the petitioner was entitled to receive one annual increment from 15.06.1991 but the same was denied on account of the fact that the petitioner has not cleared in the Hindi typing test and not attained 40 years of age. He submits that challenging the same, initially a writ petition in WPS No. 3507 of 2015 by similarly situated employee which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 30.09.2015 reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a details representation to the concerned respondents and they were directed to decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three months. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner made a representation dated 19.08.2016 (Annexure

¶27

4

¶28

P-15). He submits that the same was sent to the respondent No. 4 who in turn passed the impugned order dated 26.02.2016 (Annexure P-16) denying the relief to the petitioner on the account that the petitioner has not passed the Hindi typing test and she is entitled to the annual increment after passing the same or after attaining the age of 40 years. He submits that the issue is no longer res integra in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of State of MP and Others V. Ku. Ramani Bai Bhagat, 2013 MPLSR 31 (DB) and also by an order of this Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in case of Pawan Kumar Janghel V. State of Chhattisgarh and Others passed in WPS No. 3099 of 2015 vide order dated 23.08.2024. Therefore, he submits that the impugned communication Annexure P-14 cannot stand and the same may be quashed directing the respondents to grant annual increment after one year from there date of respective joining.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though annual increment was sanctioned by the State however, the respondent No. 5 raised an objection and denied the same that the petitioners are entitled to received the annual increment only after passing the Hindi typing test or after attaining the age of 40 years therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. However, learned counsel for the respondent was not in position to dispute that the similarly situated persons were granted relief in WPS No. 3099 of 2015.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶31

Since the issue is with regard to grant of one annual increment after one year of service which fell consideration before State of MP and Others

¶32

5

¶33

(supra) it has been decided in favour of the petitioner and granted the relief. Similar relief has been granted in WPS No. 3099 of 2015 Pawan Kumar Janghel (supra) and in the opinion of this Court, the case of the

¶34

petitioners cannot be distinguished.

¶35

In the light of above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned communication dated 26.12.2016 (Annexure P-14) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to grant annual increment after one year from the date of their initial appointments and calculate the arrears and pay the same within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶36

No cost.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

PARUL MITTAL (Sachin Singh Rajput) Digitally signed by Judge PARUL MITTAL Date: 2026.02.25 12:58:33 +0530

¶39

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶40

Parul

Smt. Saraswati Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saraswati Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Equitas Small Finance Bank Vs Chandra Shekhar Diwan

G. S. Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Kumar Deshmukh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anaram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Vs Mohan Lal Sharma

Sunil Kotadiya Vs Priya Kankariya