Rajesh Kumar Pasine Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.03.25 18:19:04 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:14127

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 7904 of 2023

¶7

Rajesh Kumar Pasine S/o. Late Narendra Kumar Pasine, Aged About 62 Years Occupation- Lecturer Posted At District Institute of Education And Training, Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

2 - Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

3 - District Education Officer, Korba, Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

4 - Principal, District Institute Of Education And Training, Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh)

¶14

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

24.03.2026

¶18

1 By filing the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the arbitrary and unjustified action of respondent No.2, which is not directed against any specific order but pertains to the inaction and

¶19

2

¶20

objection raised by respondent No.2 at the verge of the petitioner’s retirement. It is alleged that just prior to the retirement of the petitioner, respondent No.2 has raised an objection requiring production of a Government circular concerning grant of increment upon acquiring M.Ed. qualification at one’s own expense, despite the fact that the petitioner had already been granted two increments since 2018 after duly obtaining permission from the department to pursue and pass the M.Ed. examination at his own expense. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the objection on the part of the respondent in the service book of the petitioner.

¶22

10.2 That, the respondent may also be directed to certify the two advance increments in the service book of the petitioner which he has been getting since 2016, so that the petitioner will get the benefit of the aforesaid two advance increments in his pension case.

¶23

10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. ”

¶24

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was

¶25

duly appointed on 30.06.1986, at the relevant time under the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, and has rendered long, unblemished service without any adverse remark, recovery, or departmental proceedings throughout his career. It is further

¶26

3

¶27

submitted that after obtaining due permission from the competent department vide communication dated 11.07.2012, the petitioner pursued and successfully completed his M.Ed. degree in the year 2016 at his own expense. In terms of the applicable Government circular dated 16.02.1999 (Annexure P/4), which provides for grant of two advance increments to employees acquiring higher educational qualification at their own expense with prior permission, the petitioner was rightly granted two increments vide order dated 25.04.2018, and the same has been duly recorded in his service book.

¶28

3 Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.4, taking note of the petitioner’s impending retirement and the fact that he had already been sanctioned two advance increments w.e.f. 17.02.2016, forwarded the service book along with relevant records to respondent No.2 for verification and certification. However, instead of performing the ministerial act of verification, respondent No.2 has arbitrarily raised an objection seeking production of the very Government circular dated 16.02.1999 (Annexure P/4), which already forms part of the record and on the basis of which increments were granted earlier. It is contended that such objection is wholly unjustified, mechanical, and contrary to the existing record, particularly when the entitlement of the petitioner has already been recognized and implemented by the department itself.

¶29

4

¶30

4 It is further submitted that the action of respondent No.2 is not only dehors the settled legal position but is also in the teeth of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been consistently held that employees acquiring higher qualifications at their own expense with due permission are entitled to the benefit of advance increments. The learned counsel submits that similarly situated employees across the State have been extended the said benefit in terms of the circular dated 16.02.1999 (Annexure P/4), and therefore, denial or obstruction in the petitioner’s case amounts to hostile discrimination and arbitrariness, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

5 Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has already retired in the year 2023 and that the unwarranted objection raised by respondent No.2 at such a belated stage is wholly mala fide, arbitrary, and intended only to harass the petitioner. It is submitted that the said objection has a direct bearing on the fixation of the last pay drawn and consequently on the pensionary and retiral benefits of the petitioner. It is further contended that once the petitioner had been granted two advance increments in terms of the Government circular dated 16.02.1999 (Annexure P/4), and the same had been duly incorporated in the service book for several years without any objection, the same cannot be reopened or unsettled at the fag end of service or after retirement, that too without any cogent reason or without following due process of law.

¶32

5

¶33

Hence, the impugned action of respondent No.2 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed, and appropriate directions are liable to be issued for certification of the service book along with release of all consequential retiral and pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

¶34

6 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is contended that all adverse allegations leveled by the petitioner against the answering respondents are specifically denied, and the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, having suppressed material facts and made misleading averments in order to obtain an equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

7 Learned State counsel further submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner is entirely misplaced, as no enforceable legal right has been infringed warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It is contended that the petitioner has failed to place complete and correct facts on record and has not disclosed the applicable rules and subsequent policy decisions governing the field. It is submitted that although the petitioner was granted two advance increments earlier, the same does not create a vested or indefeasible right, particularly

¶36

6

¶37

when the issue has to be examined in light of the prevailing rules and subsequent clarifications issued by the State Government.

¶38

8 It is further submitted that the Government of Chhattisgarh, vide circular/order dated 07.03.2020 (Annexure R/1), has categorically clarified the scope and applicability of grant of advance increments for acquiring higher qualifications. As per the said policy, the grant of advance increments was originally intended to incentivize acquisition of qualifications higher than the minimum prescribed at the time of recruitment. However, after amendment in recruitment rules and introduction of mandatory qualifications such as B.Ed./BTI/D.Ed. post 16.06.1993, such qualifications became essential and no longer fall within the category of “higher qualification” warranting grant of additional increments. It is thus contended that in the present factual and legal backdrop, the petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit of advance increments as a matter of right.

¶39

9 Learned State counsel further submits that the restructuring of the education system, discontinuation of direct recruitment to certain cadres, and introduction of Panchayat/Urban Body based appointments have materially altered the service conditions, and the petitioner’s claim cannot be considered in isolation ignoring these changes. It is contended that the competent authority has acted strictly in accordance with the prevailing rules and government instructions, and the objection raised in the service

¶40

7

¶41

book is a procedural step to ensure compliance with applicable norms before finalizing pensionary benefits. It is lastly submitted that the entire process has been conducted in a fair and transparent manner, without any arbitrariness or illegality, and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice. Therefore, in absence of any legal infirmity in the action of the respondents, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed being vague, baseless, and lacking in substance.

¶42

10 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.

¶43

11 From a perusal of the circular dated 16.02.1999 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Tribal and Scheduled Caste Welfare Department, it clearly transpires that a conscious policy decision was taken by the State, in light of the memorandum of the School Education Department dated 24.12.1998 and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 9895 dated 22.07.1996, to grant two advance increments to teachers who had acquired training qualifications such as B.Ed., M.Ed., B.T.I., etc. It is specifically provided therein that teachers appointed up to 22.10.1996 are entitled to such increments irrespective of whether the training was undertaken at their own expense or at Government expense. Thus, the entitlement to grant of two advance increments upon acquiring higher educational

¶44

8

¶45

qualification at one’s own expense with due permission stands clearly recognized under the said circular.

¶46

12 In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on 30.06.1986 and had obtained due permission from the department prior to acquiring the M.Ed. qualification in the year 2016 at his own expense. It is also an admitted position that in terms of the aforesaid circular dated 16.02.1999, the petitioner was granted two advance increments vide order dated 25.04.2018 and the same were duly recorded in his service book. The said benefit remained unchallenged and was acted upon for a considerable period of time.

¶47

13 In such circumstances, the objection raised by respondent No.2 at the verge of retirement of the petitioner, seeking to question the very grant of increments already extended in accordance with the governing circular, is wholly arbitrary, unjustified, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Once the benefit has been validly conferred in terms of an existing policy and duly reflected in the service record, the same cannot be unsettled at a belated stage, particularly when no fraud, misrepresentation, or illegality has been attributed to the petitioner.

¶48

14 Accordingly, the impugned action/objection of respondent No.2 in the service book of the petitioner is hereby set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to forthwith delete the said objection/entry from the service book of the petitioner and to finalize and certify the

¶49

9

¶50

service record by taking into account the two advance increments already granted to the petitioner in terms of the circular dated 16.02.1999.

¶51

15 The respondents are further directed to revise and release all consequential retiral and pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the basis of such corrected service record, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶52

16 The writ petition is accordingly allowed . No order as to costs.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶55

Yogesh

Rajesh Kumar Pasine v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Pasine 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

Mangaloo Jolhe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Shrivas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanchanmala Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhaniram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durgesh Kumar Nayak Vs D.E.O. Dt. Jashpur

Sanjivani Nursing Home Situated Sawadia Campus Behind Gopi Talkies Raigarh Vs State of Chhattisgarh