_D§: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon’ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. Writ Appeal No.323l201 1 Appellants 1 . Respondents Vs. Respondent Petitioner State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Water Resources Mantrlaya Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Deputy Hydrometerology Divn. No.4, State Data Centre, Water Resources Department, Rama; CG State Director, Smt. Kunjannamma, aged about 54 years, W/o. Shri Joy Thomas, R/o. Qtr No.H—40, Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur CG State. Present: Shri UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State/appellants. ‘ Shri KR Nair, counsel for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (08.11.2011.) Heard on LA. No.01. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeaL 3. According to the office report, the appeal is barred by 79 days limitation. 4. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the State/appellants have shown sumcient cause for not tiling the appeal in time ‘condoned. i 5. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in tiling the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 6. and the delay deserves to be Heard on admission. f W.A. No. 323/2011 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24‘“ February, 2011 passed in W.P.(S) No.969/20fl 0, the State has filed this appeaL By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has ailowed the writ petition tiled by the respondent and has quashed the order dated ‘ 08.6.2009, whereunder, increment granted earlier were withdrawn by the State Authorities. The writ Court further directed that any recovery that has been made pursuant to the said order, shall also stand quashed and the respondent would be entitled to thevamount of annual increment granted to her, 8. The respondent was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-ill subject to the condition that she should have to pass Hindi Typewriting Examination. It was also a condition that until she passes the Hindi Typewriting examination, she would not be entitled for annual increment, and basic pay and admissible. allowances would be paid. The respondent passed Hindi Typewritlng examination and submitted the certificate and accordingly she was allowed the annual increments from the.date of submission of the y certificate. Later on annual increments granted to the respondent were withdrawn and orders were also passed for recovery of amount already paid to the respondent. The respondent and other similarly situated persons challenged the aforesaid order before the writ Court and the «writ Court allowed their writ petitions by a common order dated 24~02—2011 and directed that annual increments should be paid to the employees and if any amount has already bee recovered from them, the same shall also be paid to them. t n i7 3 W.A. No. 323/2011 9. The benefit of payment of annual increment was based on two earlier decisions in the matters of simiiarly situated empioyees. The said decisions are Malaydeen Verma and others Vs. State of M.P. & others 1991 MPST 379 and B.L. Goyal Vs. State of M.P. 8. Others (O.A. No.1981l99). 10. Shri Deo submits that the benefit was given to those employees who had approached the Tribunailcompetent Court. Since the respondent had not filed any application/petition before any Court of iaw and there is no order in favour of the respondent, the increments granted on the ground of parity were later on withdrawn. 11. The writ Court has taken a view that in the light of the above two decisions, the respondent was entitled to get the annual increments and the increments already granted on the basis of orders passed in the above two decisions could not have been withdrawn by the State only on the ground that the respondent did not approach the Court or the Tribunal. 12. We have heard Shri Deo at length. We are of the view that N the respondent was entitled to get the increments on the basis of the ' above two orders and it was rightly granted to her. Further, the increments would not have been withdrawn only on the ground that there is no order of the Court or Tribunal in favour of the respondent as in the cases of Malaydeen Verma(supra) and B.L. Goyal (supra). 13. The writ Court has taken a correct view in the matter. “ 28 4 W.A. No. 323/2011 14. For the foregoing reasons, we do not fund any substance in the writ appeal, which is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed ’1 wr summarily. Sdi— @umIKumarsmhax‘ ’ Sdl~ ‘l -Judge ‘xl .l ‘ ‘ Radhe Shyam Sharma Bini r Judge