Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Shakuntala Agrawal on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12604-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 225 of 2026
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary Government of
Chhattisgarh Department of Water Resources Mahanadi Bhawan
Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Chief Engineer Godavari Kachhar Raipur Chhattisgarh
District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Pension Redressal Committee General Administrative
Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District-
Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. Shakuntala Agrawal W/o Shri R.J. Agrawal Aged About 77 Years
R/o 2/5 Nehru Nagar West Opposite Gurudwara Bhilak 490022,
Durg District- Durg Chhattisgarh
2. Sanjay Agrawal S/o R.J. Agrawal Aged About 51 Years R/o 2/5
Nehru Nagar West Opposite Gurudwara Bhilai 490022 Durg
District Durg Chhattisgarh
3. State of M.P. Through- Principal Secretary Water Desources
Department Ballabh Bhawan Bhopal (M.P.)
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) Digitally For Appellants/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE General.
MORLE Date:
2026.03.17
17:56:17
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate.
+0530
2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
17.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants/State, as well as Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2, on I.A. No. 2 of 2026, which is an application seeking condonation of delay.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon considering the reasons stated in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2 of 2026 is allowed, and the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
3. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellants/State against the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 9126 of 2023 (Shakuntala Agrawal & Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by respondents No. 1 & 2/writ petitioners herein was allowed.
4. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that respondent No. 1 is the wife and respondent No. 2 is the son of Late Shri R.J. Agrawal, who was posted as Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department and had been in service since 1960. During the course of 3 his service, certain allegations regarding irregularities in expenditure on the muster roll arose at Tandula, Water Resources Division, Durg in April, 1994. Consequently, Late Shri R.J. Agrawal was placed under suspension from his post vide order dated 07.10.1994. Thereafter, he was reinstated in service on 01.05.1995 with the stipulation that the regularization of the suspension period would be considered only after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry.
5. Learned State counsel submitted that Late Shri R.J. Agrawal retired from service on 31.07.1995 upon attaining the age of superannuation while the departmental inquiry against him was still pending. Since no final disciplinary order was passed during his lifetime, the suspension period from 07.10.1994 to 01.05.1995 could not be regularized at that stage. Subsequently, the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, vide order dated 08.03.2019, decided to close the pending departmental inquiry against Late Shri R.J. Agrawal on the ground that the proceedings could not be completed for more than 23 years, and further directed that the suspension period be treated as "in service for all purposes except salary." He further submitted that respondents No. 1 and 2 thereafter claimed payment of retiral dues along with interest on the ground that the pensionary benefits had been delayed for a long period. However, by order dated 09.06.2023 and communication dated 27.07.2023 issued by the General Administration Department (Pension), the authorities processed and released the retiral benefits in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. Being aggrieved by the alleged withholding of full 4 retiral benefits and the manner of settlement of pensionary dues, respondents No. 1 and 2 preferred a writ petition before the learned Single Bench of this Court.
6. It is further contended by the learned State counsel that the learned Single Judge, while deciding the writ petition, directed the appellants/State authorities to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the delayed payment of retiral dues. Being aggrieved by the said direction passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants/State have preferred the present writ appeal.
7. Learned State counsel respectfully submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the statutory mandate contained in Rule 64(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, 'Rules of 1976'), which provides that gratuity shall not be paid to a Government servant until the departmental or judicial proceedings are concluded and a final order is passed thereon. According to him, Late Shri R.J. Agrawal, while serving as Executive Engineer in the Tandula Water Resources Division, Durg, was found prima facie guilty of irregularities in the purchase of materials, pursuant to which a departmental inquiry was instituted vide order dated 08.01.1986 issued by the Water Resources Department of the then State of Madhya Pradesh. Subsequently, by order dated 07.10.1994, he was placed under suspension for serious negligence in execution of muster roll works, and the disciplinary proceedings remained pending during his service tenure.
5
8. It was further submitted by the learned State counsel that the matter was subsequently examined in light of the instructions of the Council of Ministers dated 29.05.2000, and the proceedings culminated in an order dated 13.06.2000 imposing the penalty of withholding 50% of pension and complete forfeiture of relief on pension. However, owing to subsequent developments and the lapse of considerable time, the charge-sheet was treated as having become time-barred after 23 years without final adjudication. In view of Circular No. F 3-1/2011/1-3 dated 03.03.2012 issued by the General Administration Department, which mandates that disciplinary proceedings against a Government servant shall stand terminated upon death, the pending proceedings were formally treated as void and terminated vide order dated 09.06.2023 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources Department. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Pension Resolution Committee in its meeting dated 01.05.2023, wherein it was directed that 90% anticipatory pension be released and that a "No Demand, No Investigation, No Incident" certificate be obtained. Upon issuance of such certificate vide letter dated 09.06.2023, the pension case was duly processed and approved by the Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Durg Division on 16.06.2023, and final payment was made through the Treasury in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
9. Learned State counsel would submit that the gratuity and final pensionary benefits were released only after termination of the disciplinary proceedings and issuance of the requisite certification, 6 strictly in conformity with Rule 64(c) of the Rules of 1976, as the authorities were statutorily barred from releasing gratuity prior to the conclusion of the proceedings. According to him, the alleged delay was a direct consequence of compliance with the mandatory statutory provisions and not attributable to any intentional or arbitrary act on the part of the authorities. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge erred in directing payment of interest @ 9% per annum without appreciating that the settlement of pensionary benefits was dependent upon the conclusion of the pending departmental proceedings.
10. Learned State counsel further contended that Late Shri R.J. Agrawal retired on 31.07.1995 while the departmental inquiry relating to financial irregularities was pending against him. Under the statutory scheme governing pension, the employer is empowered to withhold or defer final pensionary benefits until disciplinary proceedings are concluded. It was also argued that neither Late Shri R.J. Agrawal during his lifetime nor respondents No. 1 and 2 thereafter took any steps to seek expeditious disposal of the departmental inquiry or to challenge the alleged non-release of benefits for an inordinately long period, and therefore the claim for interest ought not to have been entertained.
11. It was further submitted that the departmental inquiry was ultimately closed vide order dated 08.03.2019 on administrative considerations owing to the efflux of time and the practical difficulty in concluding proceedings after more than two decades. According to the learned State counsel, such closure did not amount to exoneration on 7 merits. He also submitted that after closure of the inquiry and the direction to treat the suspension period as "in service for all purposes except salary," the authorities were required to undertake detailed scrutiny, reconciliation of records and recalculation of pensionary entitlements under the Rules of 1976, which necessarily consumed time.
12. Learned State counsel further submitted that the Rules of 1976 do not contain any express provision mandating payment of interest on delayed pension or retiral benefits. In absence of any statutory mandate, it was contended that the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed payment of interest. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Kaushik vs. State of Haryana (2024 INSC 803) to contend that interest cannot be awarded in absence of statutory backing.
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the writ petition was rightly allowed after due consideration of the material placed on record.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings and the documents placed on record.
15. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, it is not in dispute that Late Shri R.J. Agrawal had superannuated from service on 31.07.1995 and that the retiral benefits payable to him were withheld on account of the pendency of the 8 departmental inquiry. It is also evident from the record that the said inquiry remained pending for an extraordinarily long period and was ultimately closed only on 08.03.2019 on the ground that the proceedings could not be concluded for more than two decades. Thereafter, the retiral dues were released in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 only in the year 2023.
16. The admitted position, therefore, is that the retiral benefits, which had become payable upon the retirement of Late Shri R.J. Agrawal in the year 1995, were actually released to his legal representatives after a lapse of several decades. Such an inordinate delay in the disbursement of pensionary dues cannot be overlooked by this Court. Even if the initial withholding of benefits was on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the prolonged delay in concluding the inquiry cannot be justified, particularly when the proceedings ultimately came to be closed without any final adjudication on merits.
17. It is a well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that pension and other retiral benefits are not a bounty but constitute a valuable and enforceable right of an employee earned by virtue of long years of service. Once such benefits become due, the employer is under a corresponding obligation to ensure their timely disbursement. Where there is an unjustified or prolonged delay in the release of such dues, the grant of interest is a recognized and appropriate remedy to compensate the retired employee or his dependents for the deprivation of money lawfully belonging to them.
9
18. In the present case, the delay in release of the retiral benefits has undeniably extended over a very long period. The explanation offered by the appellants/State that the benefits could not be released due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings does not satisfactorily justify the extraordinary length of time for which the inquiry remained inconclusive. Administrative inefficiency or delay in completing departmental proceedings cannot operate to the detriment of the retired employee or his family.
19. The reliance placed by the appellants/State on the absence of a specific statutory provision providing for payment of interest is also of no assistance to them. The power of the writ Court to award interest in appropriate cases flows from the principles of equity, fairness and justice, particularly where the State retains money which ought to have been released long ago. The learned Single Judge, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, was fully justified in directing payment of interest as a reasonable measure of compensation for the prolonged delay.
20. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the factual matrix as well as the governing legal principles while directing the appellants/State to pay interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues. The order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in the present writ appeal. 10
21. Consequently, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge requiring the appellants to compute and release interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the delayed payment of retiral/service dues within the stipulated period is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan