RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010122922020 2026:CGHC:38388
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2215 of 2020
1 - Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Lakhan Lal Sharma Aged About 66 Years
Occupation-Service, Retired Block Extension And Training Officer, Office Of Chief
Medical And Health Officer, Bilaspur, R/o Opposite Congress Bhawan, Tilak Nagar,
Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Health And
Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Secretary General Administrative Department, State Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Director Health Services, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan,
Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - The Commissioner Health And Family Welfare Department, Government Of
Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
5 - District Treasury Officer District Treasury Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
6 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
7 - Additional Treasury Officer District Treasury Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
...Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
31.08.2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for
the records of the case of the petitioner.
10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondents to extend the benefit of the
annual increment to the petitioner which was applicable
from 01/07/2016 along with an interest of 18% per
annum from 01/07/2016 till the date of actual payment.
10.3. Cost of the proceedings.
Digitally signed
by JYOTI JHA
Date:
2026.09.01
11:31:41
+0530

2
10.4. Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble
Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was born
on 01.07.1954 and, accordingly, attained the age of superannuation on
01.07.2016. However, the respondents treated him as having retired
from service on 30.06.2016 from the post of Block Extension and
Training Officer. He submits that the petitioner had rendered service for
the entire preceding year and had earned the annual increment which
fell due on 01.07.2016. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the
benefit of the said annual increment. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director ( Administration and Human
1
Resources), KPTCL & Others v. C.P. Mundinamani & Others .
3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was rightly retired
from service on 30.06.2016, upon attaining the age of superannuation,
and that the annual increment falling due on 01.07.2016 could not be
granted to him as he was no longer in service on the said date. He
further submits that the claim of the petitioner for grant of the said
increment and consequential revision of pension and retiral dues is not
tenable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
4. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. It is not in dispute that the annual increment was due to the petitioner
on 01.07.2016; however, the petitioner was retired from service on
30.06.2016. Consequently, the said increment was not granted to him,
which has been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
6. The issue is no longer res integra and stands settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter C.P. Mundinamani (supra), wherein it has
been held that merely because a Government servant retired on the
very next day on which the annual increment became due, the same
cannot be a ground to deny him the benefit of such increment. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 17. 20 to 23, has held as
under:-
“17 . A government servant is granted the annual
increment on the basis of his good conduct while
rendering one year service. Increments are given
1 (2023) 14 SCC 411

3
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. Therefore, the moment a
government servant has rendered service for a
specified period with good conduct, in a time scale,
he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be
said that he has earned the annual increment for
rendering the specified 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 efficiently in the
preceding one year.
20. Similar view has also been expressed by different
High Courts, namely, the Gujarat High Court, the
Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Orissa High Court
and the Madras High Court. As observed
hereinabove, to interpret Regulation 40(1) of the
Regulations in the manner in which the appellants
have understood and/or interpretated would lead to
arbitrariness and denying a government servant the
benefit of annual increment which he has already
earned while rendering specified period of service
with good conduct and efficiently in the last preceding
year. It would be punishing a person for no fault of
him. As observed hereinabove, the increment can be
withheld only by way of punishment or he has not
performed the duty efficiently. Any interpretation
which would lead to arbitrariness and/or
unreasonableness should be avoided. If the

4
interpretation as suggested on behalf of the
appellants and the view taken by the Full Bench of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court is accepted, in that
case it would tantamount to denying a government
servant the annual increment which he has earned for
the services he has rendered over a year subject to
his good behaviour. The entitlement to receive
increment therefore crystallises when the government
servant completes requisite length of service with
good conduct and becomes payable on the
succeeding day.
21 In the present case the word “accrue” should be
understood liberally and would mean payable on the
succeeding day. Any contrary view would lead to
arbitrariness and unreasonableness and denying a
government servant legitimate one annual increment
though he is entitled to for rendering the services over
a year with good behaviour and efficiently and
therefore, such a narrow interpretation should be
avoided.
22. We are in complete agreement with the view
taken by the Madras High Court in the case of P.
Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi High Court in the
case of Gopal Singh (supra); the Allahabad High
Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra); the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra
Singh Bhadauria (supra); the Orissa High Court in the
case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal (supra); and the
Gujarat High Court in the case of Takhatsinh Udesinh
Songara (supra). We do not approve the contrary
view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in the case of Principal Accountant-
General, Andhra Pradesh (supra) and the decisions of
the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India
Vs. Pavithran (O.P.(CAT) No. 111/2020 decided on
22.11.2022) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in

5
the case of Hari Prakash Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on
06.11.2020).
23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the Division Bench of the High Court has
rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual
increment which the original writ petitioners earned on
the last day of their service for rendering their
services preceding one year from the date of
retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are
in complete agreement with the view taken by the
Division Bench of the High Court. Under the
circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P.
Mundinamani ( Supra), the present writ petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to grant the benefit of one annual increment
to the petitioner, which fell due on 01.07.2016, and consequently re-fix
his pension and other retiral dues accordingly. However, the petitioner
shall not be entitled to any interest on the consequential monetary
benefits, as no such interest was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid judgment.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed to the extent
indicated above.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Jyoti