Avnish Kumar Keshri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010439672024

2026:CGHC:29726

NAFR

RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.15 17:44:02 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 8421 of 2024

¶8

Avnish Kumar Keshri S/o Shri Shambhu Prasad Keshri Aged About 40 Years Working As Assistant Revenue Officer At Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G.

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, C.G.

¶12

2 - Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur, C.G.

¶13

3 - Zone Commissioner Zone No. 7, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Bilaspur, C.G.

¶14

4 - Upper Aayukt Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, C.G.

¶15

Respondent(s)

¶16

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate

¶18

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, GA

¶19

For Resp. No. 2 to 4 : Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate

¶20

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

14/07/2026

¶23

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P-1), whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner

¶24

2

¶25

for grant of two advance increments on account of having successfully qualified the Local Self Government Diploma (LSGD) Examination and for endorsement of the said qualification in his service records has been rejected.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Revenue Inspector on 23.09.2013 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Revenue Officer on 10.11.2021. Pursuant to the No Objection Certificate granted by the competent authority vide order dated 22.12.2021, the petitioner appeared in the Local Self Government Diploma (LSGD) Examination and successfully qualified the same in First Division. It is submitted that the permission granted to the petitioner was never withdrawn by the respondents at any point of time. In terms of the Government Circular dated 17.06.2008, employees qualifying the said departmental diploma are entitled to two advance increments, and similarly situated employees have also been extended the said benefit. It is further submitted that though the petitioner was subsequently placed under suspension on 03.02.2023, the suspension was revoked on 24.01.2024 and, upon conclusion of the departmental enquiry, only the penalty of warning was imposed upon him. According to the petitioner, the respondents have illegally denied him the benefit of two advance increments solely on the ground that he was under suspension at the time of appearing in the examination, despite the fact that the prior permission/NOC granted to him had never been withdrawn. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is arbitrary, contrary to the Government Circular dated

¶27

3

¶28

17.06.2008, and discriminatory inasmuch as similarly situated employees have been granted the said benefit.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that though permission was granted to the petitioner to pursue the diploma course, the same was subject to the condition that his regular official duties should not be adversely affected. It is submitted that since the petitioner failed to comply with the said condition, he was placed under suspension and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved and he was inflicted with the penalty of warning. It is, therefore, submitted that the competent authority has rightly rejected the petitioner's claim for grant of two advance increments.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted No Objection Certificate vide order dated 22.12.2021 permitting him to pursue and appear in the LSGD Examination. Admittedly, the said permission was never withdrawn or cancelled by the competent authority. The petitioner successfully qualified the said examination in First Division and acquired the requisite departmental qualification.

¶31

The sole ground on which the petitioner's claim has been rejected is that he was under suspension at the time of appearing in the examination. However, once permission to pursue the course had been granted and the same was never revoked, the respondents cannot subsequently deny the consequential benefits flowing from successful completion of the course

¶32

4

¶33

merely on account of the petitioner’s suspension. More so, the suspension itself was subsequently revoked and, upon conclusion of the departmental proceedings, only the penalty of warning came to be imposed. The respondents have also not disputed that similarly situated employees have been extended the benefit of two advance increments under the Government Circular dated 17.06.2008.

¶34

In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside.

¶35

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of two advance increments to the petitioner in terms of the Government Circular dated 17.06.2008 and to make necessary endorsement of the petitioner's LSGD Diploma qualification in his service records, along with all consequential benefits. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶38

Rahul

Avnish Kumar Keshri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avnish Kumar Keshri 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharam Vs Shri Him Shikhar Gupta

Mithilesh Tiwari Vs Shri Pardeshi Siddharth Komal, Secretary

Sheetal Kumar Tamrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kunti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Lata Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shri Ramkrishna Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh