Sushila Devi Kurrey vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 79 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Sushila Devi Kurrey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 February, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

         Digitally
         signed by
         ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI   Date:
         2026.02.26
         16:52:39
         +0530
                                                          1




                                                                          2026:CGHC:9928-DB
                                                                                     NAFR

                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                WA No. 190 of 2026
                      1 - Sushila Devi Kurrey Wd/o Dwarika Prasad Kurrey, Aged About 50
                      Years R/o House No. 223, Nandor Kalan, Janjgir Champa, Distt. Janjgir
                      Champa (C.G.)
                      2 - Governer Baiyal Kurrey S/o Dwarika Prasad Kurrey Aged About 33
                      Years R/o House No. 223, Nandor Kalan, Janjgir Champa, Distt. Janjgir
                      Champa (C.G.)
                                                                                  ... Appellants
                                                        versus
                      1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Technical
                      Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur,
                      District Raipur (C.G.)
                      2 - Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Indrawati Bhawan,
                      Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
                      3 - Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension, Bilaspur, Distt.
                      Bilaspur (C.G.)
                      4 - Principal, Government Engineering College, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur
                      (C.G.)
                                                                             ... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26.02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel for the appellants as

well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the State/respondents.

2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order

dated 19.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS

No.10499 of 2025 whereby the writ petition filed by the

appellants/writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge has

been allowed.

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal

are that late Shri Dwarika Prasad Kurrey, husband of appellant

No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2, was appointed as Workshop

Instructor in the year 1993 and was posted at Government

Engineering College, Bilaspur, State of Chhattisgarh. He

remained absent from duty allegedly from 05.11.2005 onwards.

After a prolonged period, a departmental enquiry was initiated

against him vide order dated 20.05.2024 on account of

unauthorized absence. However, it is an admitted position that the

said employee had expired on 22.12.2023, i.e., prior to initiation of

the departmental enquiry as well as prior to passing of the

termination order dated 03.06.2024, whereby his services were

ordered to be terminated.

4. Aggrieved by the termination order dated 03.06.2024 passed

against a deceased employee, the appellants herein preferred the

writ petition seeking quashment of the said order and further

prayed for grant of back wages, retiral dues and all consequential

service benefits including compassionate appointment. The

learned Single Judge, after considering the matter, passed the

impugned order, which is under challenge in the present writ

appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned

order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned

Single Judge, to the extent it denies back wages and full

consequential benefits, is patently erroneous and unsustainable in

law and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that once the

learned Single Bench has categorically held in paragraph 12 of

the judgment that the entire departmental proceedings stood

abated on account of the death of the employee and that the

deceased employee shall be deemed to have remained in service

till his death on 22.12.2023, there was no legal justification to

direct calculation of retiral dues w.e.f. 05.11.2005 by treating the

period of absence to his detriment. It is contended that such

direction is self-contradictory and contrary to settled principles of

service jurisprudence. When an employee is held to have

continued in service till the date of death, his legal heirs are

entitled to fixation of pay up to the date of death and all

consequential retiral benefits, including pension, on the basis of

the last pay legally payable.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation of

unauthorized absence was never proved in accordance with law

during the lifetime of the deceased employee. No concluded

departmental enquiry establishing misconduct was brought to its

logical end before his demise on 22.12.2023. In absence of a

legally sustainable finding of misconduct, it cannot be presumed

that the deceased employee remained willfully absent so as to

deprive his family members of financial and retiral benefits.

Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Meera Sahni Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. reported in

AIR 2009 SC (Suppl.) 760, learned counsel submits that when a

statute prescribes a particular procedure for taking action, the

same must be strictly adhered to, and any deviation renders the

action unsustainable. In the present case, initiation of

departmental proceedings after the death of the employee and

denial of consequential benefits on the basis of unproved

allegations is wholly contrary to law. He lastly submits that the

appellants adopt all grounds urged in the writ petition and pray

that the impugned order be modified to the extent of granting full

back wages, retiral dues and all consequential benefits, in

accordance with law.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State

submits that the learned Single Judge has already granted

substantial relief to the appellants by setting aside the termination

order dated 03.06.2024 and by holding that the deceased

employee be deemed to have remained in service till the date of

his death. It is contended that the direction to calculate retiral

benefits from 05.11.2005 is justified in view of the admitted and

prolonged unauthorized absence of the employee from duty. It is

further submitted that the deceased employee had not rendered

any service from 05.11.2005 onwards and, therefore, the

appellants are not entitled to claim back wages for the said period

as a matter of right. The State contends that grant of back wages

is not automatic and depends upon facts and equities of each

case. Hence, no interference with the impugned order dated

19.12.2025 is warranted in the present writ appeal.

8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at

length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have

also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order

dated 19.12.2025 passed in WPS No. 10499 of 2025.

9. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the

parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single

Judge, while relying upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in A.K.S. Rathore (dead) through Lrs. v. Union

of India and another, Civil Appeal No.7028/2022 decided on

28.09.2022, as also the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High

Court of Madhya Pradesh in Smt. Veena Dhurvey v. State of

M.P., (WP No.13655/2017 decided on 06.07.2023) and the

judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in Pushpa Devi v.

State of UP, (WA No.15004/2022 decided on 17.02.2023), has

passed the impugned order in following terms:-

"12. Considering the above factual and legal position, that after death no enquiry can be conducted, therefore, the subsequent termination order dated 03.06.2024 terminating the service of

the petitioner is set aside as the proceedings stand abated on account of death of Government Servant on 22.12.2023. Consequently, it is held that the petitioner remained in service till his death on 22.12.2023, therefore, the respondent/State is directed to calculate retirement dues of deceased employee as per the last salary drawn by him i.e. from 05.11.2005. The petitioner's No.1 husband was appointed on 01.12.1993 and he expired on 22.12.2023 thus he has completed 30 years of service, as such the petitioner No.1 is entitled to get family pension, gratuity of her husband and all other service benefits which she is entitled to get. The respondents shall calculate these dues within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

13. Learned State counsel would submit that the application submitted by the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment has already been rejected on the count that petitioner's No.2 father has been terminated, therefore, his application for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be considered. Thus the rejection of the application on the count of termination of the petitioner's No.1 husband deserves to be set aside on the count that this Court in foregoing paragraph has already quashed the termination order. In such situation, it is directed that petitioner No.2 would submit a fresh application for grant of compassionate appointment, which will be considered by the respondent/State in accordance with the policy, circular prevailing on

the subject within three months from the date of receipt of the application.

14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost."

10. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions

advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of

the material available on record, we find no infirmity or illegality in

the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 passed by learned Single

Judge warranting interference in the present intra-Court appeal.

11. The learned Single Judge has, after due appreciation of the

factual matrix and the settled legal position, rightly held that once

the employee had expired on 22.12.2023, no departmental

enquiry could legally be continued or initiated thereafter, and any

consequential order of termination passed subsequent to his

death is non est in the eye of law. The finding that the

proceedings stood abated on account of death of the Government

servant is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in A.K.S. Rathore (dead) through Lrs. (supra)

as well as the decisions rendered by the High Courts in Smt.

Veena Dhurvey (supra) and Pushpa Devi (supra), which have

consistently held that disciplinary proceedings cannot survive

against a deceased employee.

12. Insofar as the grievance raised by the appellants with respect to

back wages and fixation of retiral dues is concerned, we are of the

considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has struck a

balanced and equitable approach. While quashing the termination

order and directing release of family pension, gratuity and other

admissible service benefits, the learned Single Judge has

consciously refrained from granting back wages for the period

during which the employee admittedly did not discharge duties. It

is settled law that grant of back wages is not automatic and

depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. The

direction for computation of retiral dues in the manner indicated

cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to law, particularly when

the employee had remained absent for a prolonged period.

13. The scope of interference in an intra-Court appeal against an

order passed in exercise of writ jurisdiction is limited. Unless the

findings recorded by the learned Single Judge suffer from

manifest illegality or patent perversity, the appellate Court would

not substitute its own view merely because another interpretation

is possible. In the present case, the appellants have failed to

demonstrate any such error apparent on the face of record or

misapplication of law warranting interference.

14. We are also mindful of the fact that the learned Single Judge has

already granted substantial relief to the appellants by setting aside

the termination order, recognizing continuity of service till the date

of death, directing payment of family pension, gratuity and other

admissible benefits, and further permitting consideration of the

application for compassionate appointment in accordance with

prevailing policy. The impugned order thus adequately safeguards

the rights of the appellants.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered

opinion that the present writ appeal is devoid of merit. No case for

interference with the well-reasoned order dated 19.12.2025

passed in WPS No.10499 of 2025 is made out.

16. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No order as to

costs.

                       Sd/-                                     Sd/-
             (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                      (Ramesh Sinha)
                     Judge                                  Chief Justice


Anu