COURTFEES EXEREPTED BYtSiOTSFICATSOt-i N0,996(yO-287Q/)0(l- B/C.S705 AS SPECiF!ED IN SCHEDULe I& H OF THE GOURT FEES AGT 187& BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT APPEAL N0. ISS /2010 B'M'SS'fO» fARISING OUTOF W.P.fSl N0. 3305/20091 APPELLANTS : 1. RESPONDENTS/STATE N0, Oi TB 03 ,^y/ -/^t^/ j^f/ ^Jsw ^w '\-' STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, Through: The Secretary, Water Resources Department DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh i The Chief Englneer, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENT PETITIONER Vijay Kumar, S/o. Late C. Shrivastava, Agsd about 47 years, R/o. C/o. Sl'iri Raghunath Soni, Village Bandi, Baikunthpur, DistrictKorea, Chhattisgarh WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN^ fll OF CHHATTISGARH HIGHCOURT fAPPEAL TODIVISION BENCHVACT.2006 Being aggneved by the judgment and theorder passed on 23rd November, 2009 in W.P. (S) No.3305/2009, Lalkarus Tirkey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh,and Others, by the Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court, whereby the learned Single Bench was pleased to quash the ordel' Annexure-P-16 of the Writ Petition by which the State had directed to recall/return the orders of grant of annual increment on the ground :^ B!-;l !^i HIGH COURT QR GHHATTISGARH : BIIASFUR W.A.No. 155of2010 , Appellants State ofCIiIiatdsgarh & others Versus: '•' ;. ,-, . .. Respondent Vgay Kumar WRI'I'^EE&I,® ®®SE©iI©N^ J:@iS?"I'BE^GHHftTTigGARH . :- ^ :: .;»C^^E)i3l® i@ffi!WBffii§@ Bffl'EM^^ , : ;; . ; ;-.-;':'r'':^s B^:;rBB^:^Hon'l^^ ^^ . : , • ::. •:" & Hon'ble Mr. N. K. Agarwal, JJ. Shri G. D. Waswaai, Govt. Advoeate with Ms DeepaU Pandey, Paael ;Lawyerfbrfhe,:appeHauts.;-,.' , .••;, ^ . _ , • ••' ::': : :•:. '^/.; , ; ... ' Ms Shyainli NaMu, Advocate fbrthe respondeiit. ORDERtorall ; ( Passed oii this 9th day ofJu]y, 2010 ) Per I..M:.Qudaiusi.^.i.?.l:^l': ,':," ?''.' .' ;: . : • . .',':.' • 1. Heard Marned counsel^ a^ leamed counsel appearaig fbr the respoiiderit. 2. This appeal has been filed agamst the iaipugned ordesr dated ^ 23rd NQweniBier,2009, passed by teamed Single jT.ulge itt W, P. (S) N6.^©3/^()9(RameyandiaKU p .StateofC.Q and ofher comiected matters, iucludmg W.R.(S^No. 3305^2009, -y allGwinglIiewritpetitionsto^^^ •^ . . • • . ' . . • . •....'. ...',- •.'.•. ..'•;. :• : :..• • •. •• ',•: '.•'.:•.'•••......•• • • ...'..•. •• • . • .. ..' 3. The case is squarety covered;by^fhejudgmentaad^b^ July, 2010, passed lay^lius Gourt m Writ ATO '-Sw./'^ (State of (^G. & Othe^ Vs. Mateshwar^ R and pfh.er cotuiected inatters. Siuce fhe facts ai those cases are simifar to fhe facts of this case, fherefore we dispose offlus writ appeal with the^direclion i'. .'" '-.:•'.' •'.'"• " tliat th&jiidgment and oFder4ated5A\July, 8010, passed^^^ above batch ctfwiit appeals sltaUbe mUfa^ iastantcase also. 'yA, '•^S^^E^sS^ ^ TUakm- We make it clear fhat fhe iastaat writ appeal is parfly allpwed aad the impugned order so far as it relates to impositioxi of 6% interest on the ainoiint of atmual iacreiuent so recovered is conceraed, ftie ,same is hereby set as^e. However, rest of the order of leamed SingleJudgeidaled23i 11.2009 shaUreaaiam intact aad shaU be .6beyed.:'',:..'. .;':1:.- . " 1: .' : The writ appeal is allowed to the above exterit.No order asto costs. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge ^ l||i! i|lif ^ l (ii " ^^ -sxsmiuaKsis ^uiBUitaa^^'-MUrti;1':.'.. •'••'-