Uddhav Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:7447

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 838 of 2022

¶6

Uddhav Ram Sahu S/o Harishchandra Sahu Aged About 64 Years Retired Time Keeper At Public Work Department, Municipal Corporation Durg R/o Behind Chandrashekhar High School, Panchsheel Nagar, Ward No. 01 Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration , Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Director Urban Administration And Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶12

	... Respondent
For Petitioner	: Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar,Advocate
For Res. Nos. 1 &	: Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Deputy Government
2/State	Advocate
For Res. No. 3	: Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by
	Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

10.02.2026

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following

¶17

prayer:-

¶18

2

¶19

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make payment of one annual increment on his last salary of the petitioner for calculating his retiral benefits for the periof of service rendered by the petitioner from 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019.

¶20

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the calim of petitioner for grant of annual increment in the light of the decision rendered in the similar situated writ petitions, which are AnnexureP-2.

¶21

10.3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take decision over the representation of petitioner which are pending before them as Annexure P-3.

¶22

10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that the petitioner retired from the service on 30th June, 2019 from the post of time keeper under the Public Work Department of the Municipal Corporation Durg/respondent No. 3 after the completion of age of superannuation ie., 62 years.

¶24

The petitioner’s grievance in brief is this, that he is entitled to get annual increment on 1st July every year, but since the petitioner has been retired from service on 30.6.2019, his annual increment from 01.07.2019 has not been considered. He would further submit that he has already worked for the entire period, he is entitled for grant of annual increment. He would further submit that similar issue was dealt by Hon'ble Division Bench of M.P. High Court in WA No.363/2020 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has held as under:

¶25

3

¶26

“The question is having worked for entire year to the satisfaction of the employer whether an incumbent can be denied the bene�t merely because he stood retired on a day early to the date of increment. An issue of similar nature came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in S. Banerjee vs. Union of India : AIR 1990SC 285 wherein the petitioner who having retired on January 1st 1986 claimed the bene�t under paragraph 17.3 of Fourth Central Pay Commission Report Part II, held that-

¶27

Under paragraph 17.3, the bene�ts recommended will be avail to employees retiring during the period, January 1, 1986 to September 30, 1986. So the employees retiring on January,1986 will be entitled to the bene�t under para-graph 17.3. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner has retire don January 1, 1986. We have already extracted the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court with e6ect from the forenoon of January 1,1986. It is true that in view of the proviso to rule5(2) of the Rules, the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary for the day on which he actually retired. But, in our opinion, that has no bearing on the question as to the date of retirement. Can it be said that the petitioner retired on December31, 1985? The answer must be in the negative. Indeed, Mr. Anti Dev Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, frankly conceded that the petitioner could not be said to have retired from the service of this Court on December 31, 1985. Then it must be held that the petitioner had retired with e6ect from January 1,1986 and that is also the order of this Court dated December 6, 1985. It may be that the petitioner had retired with e6ect from the forenoon of January 1, 1986 as per the said order of this Court, that is to say, as soon as January 1, 1986 had commenced the petitioner retired. But,nevertheless, it has to be said that the petitioner had retired on January 1, 1986 and not on December 31, 1985. In the circumstances, the petitioner comes within the purview of para- graph17.3 of the recommendations of the Pay Commission.”

¶28

The Hon‘ble Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar decided on 15-9-202017 in WP No. 15732 of 2017 has held in para 6 & 7 which read as under.

¶29

“6.In the case on hand, the petitioner got retired on 30.06.2013. As per the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the increment has to be given only on 01.07.2013,but he had been superannuated on30.06.2013 itself. The judgment referred to by the petitioner in State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department and others v. M. Balasubramaniam, reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 6525, was passed under similar circumstances on 20.09.2012,wherein this

¶30

4

¶31

Court confirmed the order passed in W.P.No.8440 of 2011 allowing the writ petition fled by the employee, by observing that the employee had completed one full year of service from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003, which entitled him to the benefit of increment which accrued to him during that period.

¶32

7.The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the frst respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs.”

¶33

Thereafter the matter was traveled upto the Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.22283/2018 has dismissed the SLP filed by the Union of India against which the review petition has also been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has also been dismissed. He would further submit that his case is also covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court, affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

¶34

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case of KPTCL Vs. C.P. Mundinamani, reported in (2023) 14 SCC 411 observed merely because the government servant retired on the very next day, cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of annual increment thus observed in paragraph 17 as under:

¶35

“17. A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one-year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period.

¶36

5

¶37

Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a timescale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified b period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (one year) with good conduct efficiently. Merely because the government servant has retired on the very next day, how can he be denied the annual increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to for rendering the service with good conduct and efficiency in the preceding one year.”

¶38

In view of the above fact, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a fresh representation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the respondent authority and on such representation being filed, the respondent authority shall consider and decide the same in the light of the aforesaid judgments within a time period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶39

With the aforesaid observations & directions, this petition is disposed of.

¶40

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶41

Ami

¶42

AMITA DUBEY

¶43

Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.23 13:13:04 +0530

Uddhav Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uddhav Ram Sahu 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

Bharti Kesharwani Vs Ramchandra Kesharwani

Monika Sharma Vs Umashankar Sharma

Laxmina Devi Vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd.

Ishwari Lal Soni Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Krishn Chaudhari Vs Balkrishn

Smt. Sano Devi Vs Kaushlendra Gupta