Chattisgarh High Court
Melan Singh Chouhan vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:2350
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6580 of 2024
Digitally
signed by
RAVI
SHANKAR
1 - Melan Singh Chouhan S/o Late Shri Keju Singh Chouhan Aged
MANDAVI
About 63 Years Occupation - Ex. Govt. Employee, Retd. Driver, Water
Resources Department Bemetara R/o Kachaharipara Bemetara, Tahsil
And District - Bemetara (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Water Resources
Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal
Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.)
3 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Division Bemetara, District
Bemetara (C.G.)
4 - Sub Divisional Officer Water Resources Sub Division No. 2,
Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.)
5 - Principal Accountant General (Audit) Zero Point, Baloda Bazar
Road, Post - Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate
For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Pratik Tiwari, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
14/01/2025
1. Heard.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:
"10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned
order dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
respondent No.3.
10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue an appropriate writ by commanding and directing
the respondents to release the amount of Gratuity
forthwith with appropriate rate of interest.
10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the
petitioner together with cost of the petition."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without any
plausible reason the service benefit of the petitioner has been
withheld by the respondent authorities and vide letter dated
22.08.2024, it has been stated that since the daughter of the
petitioner has encroached upon a government land of Water
Resource Department and has constructed a pakka house in the
aforesaid encroached area, therefore the petitioner was directed
to give documents in the shape of evidence, so that his entire
service benefit may be given to him, however till date neither
document has been filed nor the document required has been
filed, as such the amount of gratuity will be paid only after filing of
the relevant document.
4. It has been argued by the petitioner that no where it has been
mentioned that the petitioner has ever encroached any land or he
is involved in the encroachment of the said land.
5. The reasons assigned by the respondent authorities Executive
Engineer, Water Resource Department, Bemetara would not be a
ground to withheld the amount of gratuity. This exercise which has
been done by the respondent Executive Engineer, Water
Resource Department, Bemetara is none else but a colourable
exercise of power, as such, the relief as sought by the petitioner
may be granted.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/State
submitted by filing their return that infact the petitioner has
encroached upon the said government land and as such, the
gratuity amount could not be given to him.
7. Be that as may be, even after considering the aforesaid argument
advanced by the learned State counsel I am unable to understand
that how this could be the reason for denying gratuity of the
petitioner. If the petitioner or the daughter of the petitioner has
encroached any government land, the proper course would be to
file appropriate application/petition before the concerned Court as
well as the officer to restrain them or to get the premises evicted
from the hands of the petitioner or his daughter while taking
recourse of law but in any case, the amount of gratuity cannot be
withheld only for the reason that as per notice the daughter of the
petitioner has encroached upon a government land and according
to reply it is the petitioner who has encroached upon the said
government land. When the question was posed to the counsel for
the State, he is unable to show any circular or judgment in this
respect that if the family member or the retired employee would
found to be in illegal possession of any government land, the
gratuity amount can be withheld.
8. Considering overall aspects of the matter, withholding of gratuity
amount seems to be an illegal and arbitrary act, as such, the
impugned order Annexure P/1 is hereby quashed. The respondent
authorities are directed to pay the gratuity amount along with an
interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner. The said exercise be
done within a period of 60 days.
9. With this direction the petition is hereby allowed.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Ravi Mandavi
