X40, / of! / 3mg wwé S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT mu BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITIONS) NO. [3% /2010. PETITIONER: / Dharam Saj, son of Late Ghasi Ram, aged about 6? years, Asst.Grade —3, Gagar Pariyojna, Up Sambhag, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, ChhattiSgarh. verSUS Respondents / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Water Resourpes Department, DKS Bhavvan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. z 2. Engineer-InChief, Water Resources Department, Raipur, Chtlaattisgarh. / 3. Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Hasdeo Basin, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA mmwpwmggzkgi . r § — ° 200 anew m (Wu) WW 1¥€IW mwm avaimm SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 23-06-2010 Shri C.J.K. Rao, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. representation of the peti ioner has been rejected No.1414/108/wT/2/m/VH o7 dated 8.6.2009, whereby the order granting benefit of incremen s, in‘respect of Assistant Grade—III who have not passed Hindi ’I‘ypew iting Examination, has been cancelled. At the very outset, lea ned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involv d in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of th Court rendered in Ramchandra Kurup Vs. State of C.G. 8a 0th s [W.P. (S) No.3663/2009] and other connected matters decided o 23rd November, 2009. Learned counsel prays that this petition may be disposed of in terms of Ramchandra Kurup (supra), to which lear ed counsel appearing for the State has no objection. Accordingly, the writ p tition is allowed in terms of order passed in the case of Ramchandra urup (supra). The impugned order dated 8.6.2009 (Annexure P—l), drecting recovery of annual increment is i Heard. Challenge in this tition is to the order No.4 19 /W. W/ 108/ 07 dated 8.6.2 O9 (Annexure' P- 1), whereby the W Wm W ‘ zoo mmm ammamw mmm Fzr mm (Wm WW§WW agaif‘aum quashed. No recovery of payment of annual increments to the petitioner can be made pursua the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the ratrof 6% per annum. nt to the impugned order. If the amount has already been recovered, No order as to costs. r Praveen Sd/- Manindra M0113n ShrivastaY/an Judge L