Chattisgarh High Court
Bali Ram Chaurasia vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 August, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4218 of 2021
Bali Ram Chaurasia S/o Shri Chaitu Ram Aged About 65 Years Retired
Head Master, Government Girls Middle School, Surangpani, R/o Lailunga,
Tahsil- Lailunga, District- Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District- Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Development
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Director School Education Department, Indrawati Bhavan, Atal
Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Commissioner Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja,
Chhattisgarh.
4. The District Education Officer Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
5. The Block Education Officer Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For State : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
12/08/2021
1. The claim of the petitioner through the present writ petition is for
issuance of an appropriate direction for the release of full pension,
which the petitioner is entitled for.
2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner was working on the post of
Headmaster of the Govt. Girls Middle School, when he retired from
service on 30.06.2018. According to the petitioner, subsequent to his
retirement till date he is only receiving 90% of pension. 10% of the
pension has been held back on the alleged ground of some
departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner.
3. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he has not been
issued with any charge-sheet till date, nor is there any departmental
enquiry as such for any misconduct under the service Rules initiated
or contemplated against him. According to the petitioner, there was
only a letter of the District Education Officer calling upon the petitioner
to remain present before the District Education Officer in respect of
some allegation, which was being inquired into by the District
Education Officer. However, though the petitioner has responded back
to the District Education Officer immediately seeking providing of the
charge-sheet or the memo of allegations charged against the
petitioner, there has been no further development or progress.
However, till date though more than 3 years have lapsed that the
petitioner has retired, he is still getting 90% of pension and in terms of
Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Pension
Rules, 1976, he would be entitled for the full pension and for which the
present writ petition has been filed for an appropriate direction.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that except for the averment
made by the petitioner in the writ petition, it still needs to be verified
whether a proper charge-sheet has been issued and served upon the
petitioner or not, whether any disciplinary proceedings have been
initiated by the Disciplinary Authority or not, and whether any
disciplinary action, if initiated, has been concluded or not.
5. Be that as it may, admittedly the petitioner has been permitted to retire
as on 30.06.2018. The petitioner has been paid the retiral dues except
the full pensionary benefits. Even if for argument sake, if it is assumed
that the petitioner has been issued with a charge-sheet, but in case
the departmental enquiry if at all initiated, has not been concluded
within a period of two years, the petitioner becomes automatically
entitled for full pension immediately from the completion of the two
years period from the date of retirement. The petitioner stood retired
on 30.06.2018 two years period would get completed on 30.06.2020.
6. Given the aforesaid factual matrix of the case and the rule provision as
it stands i.e. Clause- (b) of the 3rd proviso to Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 9 of
the aforementioned Rules of 1976 clearly envisages restoration of full
pension, if the departmental enquiry is not concluded within a period
of two years. This Court recently in the case of "S.S. Som v. State of
Chhattisgarh & others" WPS No. 2495/2021 has taken a similar
stand which were in turn based upon an earlier decision of this Court
in the case of "Krishna Kumar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh &
others" WPS No. 2797/2019.
7. Given the aforesaid Rule position and also the legal position as has
been laid down by the aforesaid two judgments, the present writ
petition also therefore subject to verification of the facts and
entitlement part stands allowed and disposed of directing the
respondents to ensure necessary steps to be taken so that the
petitioner in case if the departmental enquiry has not been concluded
or still pending be released of his full pension from the date
immediately on completion of the two years period from the date of
retirement onwards.
8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner of late also is not
being paid his pension regularly and the same is being released with a
considerable gap in between, which is putting the petitioner to serious
inconveniences for sustenance. Given the said submission, the State
Authorities are directed to ensure that the pension payable to the
petitioner should be released regularly, uninterruptedly and should not
be held back without any justifiable cause.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands
allowed and disposed of. The respondents are expected to take a
decision at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the
date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Ved
