Chattisgarh High Court
Abhay Kumar Tripathi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 August, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 2287 OF 2021
Abhay Kumar Tripathi, S/o Shri J.N. Tripathi, aged about 64 years,
Retired as Patwari from Tahsil Office- Pusaur, Raigarh, R/o - Kalindi Kunj,
Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh, Civil & Revenue District Raigarh (CG)
... Petitioner
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (CG)
2. The Director, Land Record, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal
Nagar, New Raipur (CG)
3. The Collector (Land Record), Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG)
4. The Tehsildar Pusaur, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG)
5. The District Treasury Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For Respondents : Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
25/08/2021
1. The only grievance that Petitioner has in the present Writ Petition is
the non-settlement of his post retiral benefits and so even pensionary
benefits have not been released to him till date.
2. Petitioner was posted as a Patwari in District Raigarh and has
retired from services with effect from 30.6.2019. It is more than 2 years
that the Petitioner has been waiting for his retiral dues to be paid to him,
but till date he has not received a single penny by way of post retiral
benefits.
3. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that the Petitioner does not
suffer from any disqualification by which his post retiral benefits could
have been withheld. According to him, there is no departmental enquiry or
any criminal case pending against the Petitioner, yet for no reasons his
retiral dues have till date not been released.
4. One should not forget the hardship of an employee, particularly if he
is a low paid employee, and even after his retirement he is not provided
with his retiral benefits, particularly the pensionary benefits with which he
is to sustain himself and his family. If the submission of Petitioner is to be
believed, there was no any departmental enquiry pending at the time of
his retirement nor any criminal case against him pending. Therefore, the
Petitioner could not be attributed for non-releasing or non-settlement of his
retiral dues.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as also practically every High Court in
the Country has time and again held that pension, gratuity and other retiral
benefits are not to be treated as a bounty or a charity being provided by
the employer, but in fact the employee has a right to receive the same for
having given his prolonged services to the employer.
6. Moreover, one should not forget the fact that an employee who is
attaining the age of superannuation starts planning for his post retiral
settlement even before he crosses the age of superannuation. That most
of his plans are based on the retiral benefits that he would ultimately get.
In addition, there could also be many other family responsibilities and
liabilities which an employee has to discharge even after his retirement
and which also entirely depends upon the retiral benefits and the
pensionary benefits that he is going to get so that he could make
appropriate investment at the right time.
7. From the time the Petitioner has retired, till now the rate of interest
being provided by the Banks also has gone down substantially and any
investment now made by Petitioner would be facing lesser interest than
what he would otherwise have got had he invested at the time of his
retirement. This also would cause a considerable loss to Petitioner.
Normally, it is expected that the employer would settle the retiral dues of
an employee if possible on the date of retirement itself, if not, at-least
within thirty days from the date of his retirement subject to the employee
completing all the formalities otherwise required for the same. In the
instant case, there does not seem to be any such shortcomings on the
part of Petitioner which could have resulted in the withholding of the entire
retiral dues payable to him.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court right from the time of the judgment
passed in the case of D.D. Tewari (Dead) through LRs Vs. Uttar Haryana
Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr., [2014 (8) SCC 894] in 2014 and thereafter
by a catena of decisions where it has been reiterated repeatedly that
retiral dues have to be and shall be released to the employee on his
superannuation promptly. In spite of this, if the employer has without any
justifiable reasons whatsoever held back the retiral dues of an employee,
then the employee is entitled to receive due compensation for the
suffering and loss that he has otherwise incurred and suffered during all
these period post retirement.
9. Be that as it may, considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case, the present Writ Petition at this juncture is disposed of directing
the Respondents to ensure that the entire admissible retiral dues payable
to Petitioner on his superannuation with effect from 30.6.2019 is settled by
making all necessary payments within an outer limit of 45 days from the
date of receipt of copy of this Order, failing which the entire amount
payable to Petitioner shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum
from the date of retirement of Petitioner till the actual payment is made to
him.
10. It is further directed that whatever interest amount that the Petitioner
would be paid, the Respondents should ensure to recover the same from
the erring officers who have not timely processed the retiral dues of
Petitioner for prompt payment.
11. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
/sharad/ Judge
