Raghuvir Prasad Gour vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 4566 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Raghuvir Prasad Gour vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 September, 2025

                                                              1/2




HIFZURRAHMAN
ANSARI                       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
HIFZURRAHMAN                                       WPS No. 6147 of 2021
ANSARI
Date: 2025.09.19
17:27:08 +0530                     RAGHUVIR PRASAD GOUR versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH


                                                        Order on Board


                      19.09.2025           Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner/s.

                                           Mr. Vedant Shadangi, PL, for the respondents/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery was

effected after the retirement of the petitioner, which is impermissible in

law. He further contends that the interim application deserves to be

allowed. It is submitted that an inquiry was conducted against the

petitioner during his service tenure, which culminated in the imposition

of punishment, now under challenge before this Court. It is further

urged that the impugned order stipulates recovery from the pay and

other emoluments of the petitioner, whereas, after retirement, no such

recovery can be made from his pay. Learned counsel also submits that

once the petitioner stood retired, the provisions of the Chhattisgarh

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 would

cease to apply, and that the recovery order is without jurisdiction under

the Pension Rules, 1967. In support of his contention, reliance is placed

on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.S. Nanjundiah v.

State of M.P., 1985 SCC Online MP 321.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that

the inquiry was initiated prior to the petitioner's retirement. A show

cause notice was served upon him, to which a reply was submitted;

however, the same was found unsatisfactory, and the departmental

inquiry was thereafter proceeded with, ultimately culminating in the

punishment which is impugned herein.

Be that as it may, after hearing learned counsel for the parties,

this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition, having been filed in

the year 2021, and the arguments advanced by both sides requiring

adjudication at the final stage, no case for grant of interim relief is

made out at this stage, particularly after a lapse of four years.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2021, an application for grant of interim

relief, stands dismissed.

The learned State counsel is directed to produce the records of

the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner.

List this case in the week commencing 3rd November, 2025.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

H.Ansari