Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2025 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Chhattisgarh/
  4. 2024/
  5. November

Dr. Shrikant Mohre vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Decided on 29 November 2024• Citation: WPS/6552/2018• High Court of Chhattisgarh
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                                            1 / 3                                   
                                                                     NAFR           
                        HIGH COURT  OF  CHHATTISGARH   AT BILASPUR                  
            Digitally signed                                                        
            by GOURI                                                                
     GOURI                                                                          
            MUDALIAR                                                                
     MUDALIAR                        WPS No. 6552 of 2018                           
            Date: 2024.12.01                                                        
            17:10:28 +0530                                                          
               Dr. Shrikant Mohre S/o Late K.R. Mohre, Aged About 52 Years Occupation Service,
               Presently Posted & Working as Librarian in Government Niranjan Kesharwani
               Collage, Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.      ... Petitioner   
                                           versus                                   
               1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department
               Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.                
               2 - Commissioner, Directorate of Higher Education, Block - C II nd & III rd Floor,
               Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.                           
               3 - Principal, Government Niranjan Kesharwani Collage, Kota, District Bilaspur
               Chhattisgarh.                                                        
               4 - T. N. Sahu , Assistant Grade I, Government Niranjan Kesharwani Collage, Kota
               District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.                                      
                                                                ... Respondents     
               For Petitioner   : Shri Sushil Dubey, Advocate.                      
               For State/respondent : Shri Rishab Chandra Singh Deo, Panel Lawyer.  
                         Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad              
                                       Order on Board                               
               29/11/2024                                                           
                    Heard.                                                          
                  1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order dated
                    18/08/2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 by which an amount
                    of increment to the tune of Rs.550/- per month given to him vide order dated
                    14/07/2000 on account of undergoing family planning operation as per the

                                            2 / 3                                   
                    circular of the State Government has been denied. The petitioner availed the
                    said increment since then, however, suddenly vide order dated 18/08/2018
                    impugned order was passed directing the petitioner for recovery of an
                    amount of Rs.1,16,050/- while deducting Rs.11,605/- per month from the
                    salary of the petitioner from the month of August, 2018. The petitioner was
                    working as Librarian in the Government Niranjan Kesharwani College, Kota,
                    District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Since he had undergone family planning
                    operation, as such, according to the circular of the State Government, he
                    claimed increment to the tune of Rs.275/- in two counts which the
                    respondent/authorities have allowed and accordingly from 14/07/2000 he
                    was given the said increment along with his salary and other benefits. All of a
                    sudden, on 18/08/2018, the impugned order has been passed, by which, he
                    was directed for recovery of Rs.1,16,050/- which was directed to be deducted
                    per month from the salary of the petitioner amounting to Rs.11,605/- from the
                    month of August, 2018.                                          
                  2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been
                    given increment on account of family planning operation in accordance with
                    the Government circular and there is no illegality though he has signed in the
                    letter accepting the said amount that if it will be found to be not in accordance
                    with law or it has been refused to be paid by the Government, he will return
                    the same but he is entitled to get the said amount and he has not committed
                    any misconduct while accepting the said amount. Identical petitions have
                    been decided by this Court in which the petitions were allowed for the said
                    increment in WPS No.4486/2005 and WPS No.1273/2013, the case of the
                    petitioner is identical to that petitions, as such, impugned order may be
                    quashed and if the amount is recovered from the petitioner, the same be
                    directed to be refunded back to the petitioner in his account. The petitioner is
                    still working in the college as Librarian.                      
                  3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that since the petitioner

                                            3 / 3                                   
                    has stated that he will refund the amount if it was found to be incorrectly
                    given while accepting the said amount, as such, the increment granted to the
                    petitioner has rightly been withdrawn on the instructions of the higher
                    authorities, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.   
                  4. I have heard learned counsel counsel appearing for the parties.
                  5. Upon perusal of the documents, it seems that there is nothing to show that
                    the petitioner has been given increment upon some incorrect statement
                    made by the petitioner, on the contrary, it is based upon the circulars of the
                    State Government and there is no any anomaly while granting the increments
                    to the petitioner. In the identical petitions, this issue have been decided by
                    this Court and as such, I am of the view that same relief can be granted to
                    the petitioner.                                                 
                  6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18/08/2018 (Annexure P-1) is hereby
                    quashed. The respondent/authority are directed to grant two increments to
                    the petitioner to the tune of Rs.550/- from the date 18/08/2018 as has been
                    granted to him earlier and if the amount of Rs.1,16,050/- has been recovered
                    from the account of the petitioner, the same shall be returned to him with
                    interest of 6% per annum from the date of recovery till its returning back to
                    the petitioner.                                                 
                  7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.                          
                                                            Sd/-                    
                                                  (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)        
                                                            Judge                   
               gouri