2s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Qg: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon’ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma. JJ. Writ Appeal No.326l201 1 1_ State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary. Department of Water Resources Mantralaya Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Appeilants Respondents 2_ The Director, Deputy Hydrometerology Divn. No.4, State Data Centre, Water Resources Department, Raipur CG State Respondent Petitioner Jethu Ram Khutel, aged about 50 years, S/o. Shri Jhaduram Khutel, Office of Dy. Director, Hydrometerology Division No.4, Water Resources Deptt., Civil Lines, 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 sufficient cause for not tiling the appeal in 'time and the delay deserves to be condoned. 5. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in tiling \ . the writ appeal is hereby condoned. l 2 W.A. No. 326/2011 6. Heard on admission. 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24‘“ February, 2011 passed in W.P.(S) No.844J2010, the State has filed this appeal. By the impugned order, the teamed Single Judge has allowed 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petition tiled by the respondent and has quashed the order dated 08.6.2009, whereunder, increment granted earlier were withdrawn by the State Authorities.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 the amount of annual increment granted to him. 8. The respondent was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-Ill subject to the condition that he should have to pass Hindi Typewriting Examination. It was also a condition that until he passes the Hindi Typewriting examination, he would not be entitled for annual increment, and basic pay and admissible allowances would be paid. The respondent passed Hindi Typewriting examination and submitted the certificate and accordingly he was allowed the annual increments from the date of submission of the 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 Later on ‘ annual increments granted to the respondent were withdrawn and orders were also passed for recovery of amount already paid to the respondent.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 l t employees a'nd if any amount has already been recovered from them, the same shall also be paid to them. I l 3 . W.A. No. 326/2011 9. The benefit of payment of annual increment was based on two earlier decisions in the matters of similarly situated employees. The Said decisions are Malaydeen Ven'na and others Vs. State of M.P. & others 1991 MPST 379 and B.L. Goya! Vs. State of M.P. & Others (O.A. No.1981I99). 10. Shri Deo submits that the benefit was given to those employees who had approached the Tribunal/competent Court. Since the respondent had not tiled any application/petition before any Court of law 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 vlew that in the light of the aboye 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 x the respondent was entitled to get the increments on the basis of the above two orders. and it was rightly granted to him. 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). The writ Court has taken a correct view in the matter. .e T13. " V j r 4 28 W.A. No. 326/2011 14. For the foregomg reasons we do not fnd any substance In the writ appeal which Is liable to be dismissed and Is hereby dismissed summarily Bini Sd/_ . :WK’wrr,rvii"’""""’ "SunllKumar Smha s ’ '3‘ Judge Mi i‘ Sdl‘ Radhe Shyam 77" i, Sharma Judge