[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. S.L. Adile vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026
1
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
AVINASH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AVINASH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.02.27
10:14:55
+0530
WPS No. 2440 of 2023
Dr. S.L. Adile S/o Late Shri J.R. Adile Aged About 67 Years R/o 104/20, Ashoka
Ratan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner.
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health
And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Director Medical Education, Dks Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents.
For Petitioner : Shri Faiz Kazi, Advocate.
For State/Res. : Shri Sangarsh Pandey, GA and Shri Ujjawal
Choubey, PL.
Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
25/02/2026
1. Grievance as projected by the petitioner is that owing to Departmental
Enqiury against him which was initiated during his service tenure, he is not
getting entire amount of pension as well as gratuity and other service
benefits.
2. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(i) This Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to call for the
records pertaining to the instant matter;
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to quash the
orders dated 07.10.2022 (Annexure P-15), 15.11.2022
(Annexure P-16) & 01.12.2022 (Annexure P-17);
(iii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities to release the complete pension
and grant the retirement benefits in its entirety;
(iv) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other
order(s) as it deems fit, in the interest of justice.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed in the post of
Lecturer in Government Medical College, Raipur. The petitioner got
promoted to the post of Dean and was posted as In-charge Director,
Medical Education, Chhattisgarh vide orders dated 21.08.2006 and
08.09.2006. The respondent State suspended the petitioner on the charge
of negligence in scrutiny of educational qualification of freshly selected
Assistant Professors, selected through Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission, in the medical college. Thereafter, the said suspension order
was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition (S) No. 5392 of 2010,
wherein the Hon'ble Court was kind enough to dispose off the writ petition,
granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority with
his claim of revocation of suspension, and directed the respondent to
decide said claim/representation within a period of 45 days. Respondent
State revoked the suspension of the petitioner and posted him as Dean,
Medical College, Jagdalpur vide order dated 14.08.2013. That the
petitioner was transferred from Medical College. Jagdalpur to Medical
College, Raigarh, in the same capacity as Dean., vide order dated
15.07.2014. That the respondent Director, Medical Education, decided the
petitioner's pay scale and annual increment for the period of 01.01.2006 to
01.01.2016. It was later revised and the same was ratified by the Joint
Director, Treasury Department vide order dated 12.11.2018. That The
petitioner sent a proposal to the Director, Medical Education for arrears of
6TH Pay Commission and annual increment to be calculated from June
2011 to July 2018.The said proposal got approved by the Director, Medical
Education, Chhattisgarh vide order/correspondence dated 30.01.2019.
That the petitioner got transferred to Directorate, Medical Education as In-
charge Director, Medical Education vide order dated 05.02.2019. That
thereafter, the petitioner retired from the post of Dean & In-charge Director,
Medical Education, w.e.f. 31.03.2020, upon reaching age of
superannuation. That the petitioner had been denied retirement benefits
and dues and thus the petitioner filed a Writ Petition (S) No. 4352 of 2022
wherein the Hon'ble Court was kind enough to dispose off the petition
directed the respondents to consider the representation filed by the
petitioner, within a period of 90 days. That thereafter, upon receiving a fresh
representation submitted by the petitioner, the respondent authorities have
passed orders initiating departmental enquiry under Rule 64 of the Pension
Rules and have sanctioned interim pension while putting a hold on the
gratuity. That the respondents have illegally put a stop to the legally arisen
dues mentioning in an order that an excess to the tune of Rs. 11,94,698 /-
has been paid to the petitioner and have sanction interim pension i.e. 50%
of actual pension + DA. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits because of the reason that
Departmental Enquiry is pending against the petitioner, the petitioner is
being deprived of entire amount of pension as well as gratuity and other
service benefits. The petitioner retired on 31.03.2020, however, till today
even after a lapse of about 6 years, the Departmental Enquiry is pending.
5. Learned State counsel submits that due to pendency of Department
Enquiry against the petitioner whereby allegations of misappropriation of
huge amount of money has been levelled, the petitioner could not be
granted entire amount of pension as well as other service benefits including
gratuity.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available with the petition.
7. From perusal of record, it appears that petitioner retired from the post of
Dean and In-charge Director, Medical Education on 31.03.2020, against
whom, Departmental Enquiry was initiated and owing to the initiation of the
said Departmental Enquiry, he is being deprived of entire amount of
pension, gratuity and other service benefits.
8. What's more concerning is that in the present case, the petitioner retired on
31.03.2020 and even after a lapse of about 6 years, the Departmental
Enquiry has not been concluded for the reasons best known to the
competent authority. As according to letter bearing No.F 3-2/2024/1-3/45
dated 27.06.2024 issued by State of Chhattisgarh, General Administration
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, it is
necessary to complete Department Enquiry within 1 year.
9. Thus, it appears that owing to Departmental Enqiury against the petitioner,
he is being deprived of his legitimate rights for grant of pension and other
service benefits.
10.Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, it is directed that the
Departmental Enquiry be concluded within a period of 3 months of this
order and the grievance raised by the petitioner in this petition be
redressed subject to the result of the said Departmental Enquiry forthwith.
11. It is made clear that extension of time will not be granted to the Department
to complete the Departmental Enquiry.
12.The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the Departmental Enquiry
and if required the Departmental Enquiry may be done by day to day basis.
13.With the aforesaid observation/direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
14.The petitioner is at liberty to raise his grievances which could not be
redressed after completion of Departmental Enquiry.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash
