C -r' i^ S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITIONrS) N0. |t|<l6_72Q10, PETmONER: Injore Sai, son of Late Budga Ram, aged about S^years, residence of Banki Nahar Up Sambhag, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. yersys Respondents ^ ,0 \-~ ^•''JS/ ... ^~'' .••'' ^s^ l,Y''^\^ IW N>. ^••" w ^ ^^A- 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^ 2. Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resoiu-ces Department, Raipur, Chhaattisgarh. , 3. Chief Engineer, Water Resoiirce Department, Hasdeo Basin, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT P@TITIQN_UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF TH^LPEIEEi^>sroI^" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1446 OF 2010 PETITIONER Injore Sai Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226-ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri C.J. K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv. General with Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 26th day ofApril, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 8-6-2009 (Annexure P/1) whereby, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected and the order dated 8.6.2009 whereby the order granting benefit of increments, in respect of Assistant Grade-111, who have not passed Hindi Typewriting Examination, have been cancelled. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & others and other connected matters, decided on 23 November, 2009. Learned counsel prays that this petition may be disposed of in terms of Ramchandra Kurup (supra), to which learned counsel apparing for the State has no objection. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of Ramchandra Kurup (supra). The impugned order dated 8-6-2009 is quashed. No recovery of payment of annual increments to the petitioner can be made pursuant to the impugned order. If-the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. No order asto costs. Arun Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1W.P.(S)No. 3663 of 2009