Laxmi Prasad Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 5

2026:CGHC:2395

NAFR

ALFIZA BAIG

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Digitally signedby ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.01.1519:10:47 +0530

¶7

WPS No. 78 of 2026

¶8

Laxmi Prasad Chouhan S/o Chhedu Lal Chouhan Aged About 63 Years Retired Head Master (Primary School) At Govt. Primary School, Mudpar (Bade), Block Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

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

¶12

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Divisional Joint Director Fund, Account And Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

4 - District Education Officer Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, District SarangarhBilaigarh (C.G.)

¶15

5 - Block Education Officer Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate
For State	: Mrs. Anuja Sharma, Deputy Govt. Advocate

¶18

2 / 5

¶19

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

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

15/01/2026

¶22

Heard.

¶23

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.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was retired from service on 30.06.2023 and he would be entitled for annual increment that would be payable to him for the period between 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2023 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 and also 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 pay the annual increment w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.06.2018 vide its order dated 15.09.2020 holding that the order passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court is in nature of “personam and not in rem”. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that an identical issue has come up before this High Court in WPS No.3036 of 2020, Pitambar Singh Nayak Vs. State of

¶25

3 / 5

¶26

Chhattisgarh and others connected matters , in which the following

¶27

was observed at paras 6 and 7 which read thus :-

¶28

“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

¶29

benefits.

¶30

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 of July would become entitle for their post retiral benefits and consequential monetary benefits by adding that one increment.”

¶31

4 / 5

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that recently on 03.08.2023, the State Finance Department had issued the finance instructions 26/2023, wherein a clarification has been issued for grant of notionally pay fixation increment for the public servant whose retirement dates are 31st December and 30th June and in the said circular, it has also been clarified that the said provision was also applicable to the retired government servants, therefore, as the State itself has issued the circular, no controversy remains and the petition may be allowed in the light of the said circular.

¶33

On the other hand learned counsel for the State would submit that an identical issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court in the matter of “Director (Adm. And HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others1” and the authority be directed to only verify the fact whether the petitioner has been granted benefit of the increment on 1st July of the year in which he has been retired.

¶34

Considering the submissions and particularly considering judgment in the matter of Pitamabar Singh Nayak (supra) passed by this Court, wherein taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and ors. (supra) this Court has quashed the circular dated 15.07.2020 and allowed the bunch of petition, this case is also covered by the said judgment, further the State has issued the recent finance instructions 26/2023 for giving notionally pay fixation to the public servants who were going to retire on 31st December and 30th June and the said circular was also applicable to the retired government servants, therefore, in the light of

¶35

5 / 5

¶36

said circular nothing remains for the adjudication. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed.

¶37

The respondent authorities are directed to verify the fact whether the petitioner has been granted increment on 1st of July of the year in which he has retired. If during the course of the inquiry/scrutiny, it is found that he has not been granted increment, appropriate steps for grant of increment which fell due on 1st of July be added to the basic pay of the petitioner and accordingly calculate the post retiral benefits including the pensionary benefits. Let this entire exercise be concluded within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶38

Certified copy as per rules. sd/-

¶39

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶40

Alfiza

Laxmi Prasad Chouhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Prasad Chouhan 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwat Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mrs. Devika Shori Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manjulata Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivam Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madhvesh Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Babulal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh