[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Shakuntala Agrawal on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12604-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 225 of 2026
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary Government of
Chhattisgarh Department of Water Resources Mahanadi Bhawan
Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Chief Engineer Godavari Kachhar Raipur Chhattisgarh
District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Pension Redressal Committee General Administrative
Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District-
Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. Shakuntala Agrawal W/o Shri R.J. Agrawal Aged About 77 Years
R/o 2/5 Nehru Nagar West Opposite Gurudwara Bhilak 490022,
Durg District- Durg Chhattisgarh
2. Sanjay Agrawal S/o R.J. Agrawal Aged About 51 Years R/o 2/5
Nehru Nagar West Opposite Gurudwara Bhilai 490022 Durg
District Durg Chhattisgarh
3. State of M.P. Through- Principal Secretary Water Desources
Department Ballabh Bhawan Bhopal (M.P.)
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
Digitally
For Appellants/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
General.
MORLE Date:
2026.03.17
17:56:17
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate.
+0530
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
17.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the appellants/State, as well as Mr. Pawan Kesharwani,
learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2, on I.A. No. 2 of
2026, which is an application seeking condonation of delay.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon
considering the reasons stated in the application, we are of the
considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown for
condonation of delay. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2 of 2026 is allowed, and the
delay of 29 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
3. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the
appellants/State against the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in WPS No. 9126 of 2023 (Shakuntala Agrawal
& Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ
petition filed by respondents No. 1 & 2/writ petitioners herein was
allowed.
4. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that respondent No. 1
is the wife and respondent No. 2 is the son of Late Shri R.J. Agrawal,
who was posted as Executive Engineer in the Water Resources
Department and had been in service since 1960. During the course of
his service, certain allegations regarding irregularities in expenditure on
the muster roll arose at Tandula, Water Resources Division, Durg in
April, 1994. Consequently, Late Shri R.J. Agrawal was placed under
suspension from his post vide order dated 07.10.1994. Thereafter, he
was reinstated in service on 01.05.1995 with the stipulation that the
regularization of the suspension period would be considered only after
the conclusion of the departmental inquiry.
5. Learned State counsel submitted that Late Shri R.J. Agrawal
retired from service on 31.07.1995 upon attaining the age of
superannuation while the departmental inquiry against him was still
pending. Since no final disciplinary order was passed during his lifetime,
the suspension period from 07.10.1994 to 01.05.1995 could not be
regularized at that stage. Subsequently, the Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, vide order dated 08.03.2019,
decided to close the pending departmental inquiry against Late Shri R.J.
Agrawal on the ground that the proceedings could not be completed for
more than 23 years, and further directed that the suspension period be
treated as "in service for all purposes except salary." He further
submitted that respondents No. 1 and 2 thereafter claimed payment of
retiral dues along with interest on the ground that the pensionary
benefits had been delayed for a long period. However, by order dated
09.06.2023 and communication dated 27.07.2023 issued by the
General Administration Department (Pension), the authorities processed
and released the retiral benefits in accordance with the applicable
statutory provisions. Being aggrieved by the alleged withholding of full
retiral benefits and the manner of settlement of pensionary dues,
respondents No. 1 and 2 preferred a writ petition before the learned
Single Bench of this Court.
6. It is further contended by the learned State counsel that the
learned Single Judge, while deciding the writ petition, directed the
appellants/State authorities to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the
delayed payment of retiral dues. Being aggrieved by the said direction
passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants/State have
preferred the present writ appeal.
7. Learned State counsel respectfully submitted that the learned
Single Judge failed to appreciate the statutory mandate contained in
Rule 64(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for
short, 'Rules of 1976'), which provides that gratuity shall not be paid to a
Government servant until the departmental or judicial proceedings are
concluded and a final order is passed thereon. According to him, Late
Shri R.J. Agrawal, while serving as Executive Engineer in the Tandula
Water Resources Division, Durg, was found prima facie guilty of
irregularities in the purchase of materials, pursuant to which a
departmental inquiry was instituted vide order dated 08.01.1986 issued
by the Water Resources Department of the then State of Madhya
Pradesh. Subsequently, by order dated 07.10.1994, he was placed
under suspension for serious negligence in execution of muster roll
works, and the disciplinary proceedings remained pending during his
service tenure.
8. It was further submitted by the learned State counsel that the
matter was subsequently examined in light of the instructions of the
Council of Ministers dated 29.05.2000, and the proceedings culminated
in an order dated 13.06.2000 imposing the penalty of withholding 50%
of pension and complete forfeiture of relief on pension. However, owing
to subsequent developments and the lapse of considerable time, the
charge-sheet was treated as having become time-barred after 23 years
without final adjudication. In view of Circular No. F 3-1/2011/1-3 dated
03.03.2012 issued by the General Administration Department, which
mandates that disciplinary proceedings against a Government servant
shall stand terminated upon death, the pending proceedings were
formally treated as void and terminated vide order dated 09.06.2023
issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources
Department. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Pension
Resolution Committee in its meeting dated 01.05.2023, wherein it was
directed that 90% anticipatory pension be released and that a "No
Demand, No Investigation, No Incident" certificate be obtained. Upon
issuance of such certificate vide letter dated 09.06.2023, the pension
case was duly processed and approved by the Joint Director, Treasury
Accounts and Pension, Durg Division on 16.06.2023, and final payment
was made through the Treasury in accordance with the prescribed
procedure.
9. Learned State counsel would submit that the gratuity and final
pensionary benefits were released only after termination of the
disciplinary proceedings and issuance of the requisite certification,
strictly in conformity with Rule 64(c) of the Rules of 1976, as the
authorities were statutorily barred from releasing gratuity prior to the
conclusion of the proceedings. According to him, the alleged delay was
a direct consequence of compliance with the mandatory statutory
provisions and not attributable to any intentional or arbitrary act on the
part of the authorities. It was also contended that the learned Single
Judge erred in directing payment of interest @ 9% per annum without
appreciating that the settlement of pensionary benefits was dependent
upon the conclusion of the pending departmental proceedings.
10. Learned State counsel further contended that Late Shri R.J.
Agrawal retired on 31.07.1995 while the departmental inquiry relating to
financial irregularities was pending against him. Under the statutory
scheme governing pension, the employer is empowered to withhold or
defer final pensionary benefits until disciplinary proceedings are
concluded. It was also argued that neither Late Shri R.J. Agrawal during
his lifetime nor respondents No. 1 and 2 thereafter took any steps to
seek expeditious disposal of the departmental inquiry or to challenge
the alleged non-release of benefits for an inordinately long period, and
therefore the claim for interest ought not to have been entertained.
11. It was further submitted that the departmental inquiry was
ultimately closed vide order dated 08.03.2019 on administrative
considerations owing to the efflux of time and the practical difficulty in
concluding proceedings after more than two decades. According to the
learned State counsel, such closure did not amount to exoneration on
merits. He also submitted that after closure of the inquiry and the
direction to treat the suspension period as "in service for all purposes
except salary," the authorities were required to undertake detailed
scrutiny, reconciliation of records and recalculation of pensionary
entitlements under the Rules of 1976, which necessarily consumed
time.
12. Learned State counsel further submitted that the Rules of 1976 do
not contain any express provision mandating payment of interest on
delayed pension or retiral benefits. In absence of any statutory
mandate, it was contended that the learned Single Judge ought not to
have directed payment of interest. Reliance was also placed upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Kaushik vs. State of
Haryana (2024 INSC 803) to contend that interest cannot be awarded
in absence of statutory backing.
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2
supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted
that the writ petition was rightly allowed after due consideration of the
material placed on record.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
carefully perused the pleadings and the documents placed on record.
15. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the material
available on record, it is not in dispute that Late Shri R.J. Agrawal had
superannuated from service on 31.07.1995 and that the retiral benefits
payable to him were withheld on account of the pendency of the
departmental inquiry. It is also evident from the record that the said
inquiry remained pending for an extraordinarily long period and was
ultimately closed only on 08.03.2019 on the ground that the
proceedings could not be concluded for more than two decades.
Thereafter, the retiral dues were released in favour of respondents No.1
and 2 only in the year 2023.
16. The admitted position, therefore, is that the retiral benefits, which
had become payable upon the retirement of Late Shri R.J. Agrawal in
the year 1995, were actually released to his legal representatives after a
lapse of several decades. Such an inordinate delay in the disbursement
of pensionary dues cannot be overlooked by this Court. Even if the
initial withholding of benefits was on account of the pendency of
disciplinary proceedings, the prolonged delay in concluding the inquiry
cannot be justified, particularly when the proceedings ultimately came to
be closed without any final adjudication on merits.
17. It is a well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that pension
and other retiral benefits are not a bounty but constitute a valuable and
enforceable right of an employee earned by virtue of long years of
service. Once such benefits become due, the employer is under a
corresponding obligation to ensure their timely disbursement. Where
there is an unjustified or prolonged delay in the release of such dues,
the grant of interest is a recognized and appropriate remedy to
compensate the retired employee or his dependents for the deprivation
of money lawfully belonging to them.
18. In the present case, the delay in release of the retiral benefits has
undeniably extended over a very long period. The explanation offered
by the appellants/State that the benefits could not be released due to
the pendency of disciplinary proceedings does not satisfactorily justify
the extraordinary length of time for which the inquiry remained
inconclusive. Administrative inefficiency or delay in completing
departmental proceedings cannot operate to the detriment of the retired
employee or his family.
19. The reliance placed by the appellants/State on the absence of a
specific statutory provision providing for payment of interest is also of no
assistance to them. The power of the writ Court to award interest in
appropriate cases flows from the principles of equity, fairness and
justice, particularly where the State retains money which ought to have
been released long ago. The learned Single Judge, having considered
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, was fully justified in
directing payment of interest as a reasonable measure of compensation
for the prolonged delay.
20. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered
opinion that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the
factual matrix as well as the governing legal principles while directing
the appellants/State to pay interest on the delayed payment of retiral
dues. The order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer
from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting
interference by this Court in the present writ appeal.
21. Consequently, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is hereby
dismissed. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge requiring
the appellants to compute and release interest at the rate of 9% per
annum on the delayed payment of retiral/service dues within the
stipulated period is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
