1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4761 of 2022 1 - Radheshyam Pradhan S/o Late Gaur Hari Pradhan Aged About 64 Years Agricultural Development Officer (Retired), R/o Sector -2, Road No. 05, Professor Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio- Technology, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Agriculture, Vikas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Director, Agriculture, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Land Conservation Officer, Sub- Division Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sajal Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 29/01/2026 Following relief has been claimed in this petition - i) that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the 2 respondent authorities to release the remaining pension of the petitioner immediately. ii. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court may also be granted in favor of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was working as Agricultural Development Officer with the respondents retired on 30/07/2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. The entire retiral dues and gratuity of the petitioner has not been paid and only 90% of the pension and gratuity has been released to the petitioner. Thus, he submits that the respondents may be directed to pay the entire pension and gratuity along with the arrears. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that a complaint was made against the petitioner relating to which some enquiry is pending. Thus, the petitioner could not be paid the entire retiral dues. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The issue with regard to withholding of gratuity on the ground of pendency of departmental enquiry fell for consideration before this Court in WPS No.2690/2016. This Court considering the provisions contained in Rule 64 of the M.P./CG Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short ‘the Rules of 1976’) in paragraphs 10 to 12 observed thus - “10. The aforesaid provision entitles the State to withhold gratuity though it has discretion to release gratuity up to 50% in the event a departmental enquiry is pending against a Government servant who has attained the age of superannuation and retired. That means, on account of pendency of an enquiry, at the most 50% of the gratuity amount may be released and remaining 50% could be withheld until conclusion of enquiry. The provision however cannot be read to give a licence to over departmental enquiry for indefinite period and deprive a retired Govt. servant from benefit of gratuity for none of his fault. The fact of the case which are undisputed are that the enquiry report was submitted way back in the year 2005. Even after 12 years, no orders have been passed. Why should a retired Government servant 3 suffer for this callous inaction? 11. Even if no specific period for conclusion of departmental enquiry is specified under Rule 64 so as to continue withholding of gratuity, in order to save the constitutionally of the provision from being hit from the rigor of Article 14 of the Constitution, the provision has to be reasonably and rationally construed to empower the authority to withhold gratuity only for a reasonable time and not indefinitely, certainly not for long 17 years by sitting over the departmental enquiry without conclusion. This Court would not read such drastic power in the hands of respondents that irrespective of any time limit, as long as the departmental enquiry is not concluded, gratuity would remain withheld. On facts, it is not a case where the enquiry could not be completed for reasons attributable solely to the petitioner and not to the State authority. Therefore, in such a case there has to be a reasonable time limit for conclusion of the enquiry and if it is not concluded within the said period, the gratuity amount will have to be released. Such a requirement must be read into Rule 64 of the Rules of 1976 to save the power of withholding gratuity as unbridled and arbitrary. 12. There can be no justification whatsoever for withholding the retiral benefits for 17 years in the name of pendency of an enquiry against a retired Govt. servant. Rule 64 of the Rules of 1976 cannot be taken recourse to withhold gratuity for indefinite period. The action of the respondent in withholding gratuity of the petitioner in the garb of pending enquiry has to be held arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law.” 6. Likewise, this Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2021) 2 CGLJ 524, taking into consideration Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 in paragraph 14 observed as under - “14. As in this case, the departmental proceedings have not been concluded though the two years have passed according to the proviso clause (b) of the Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 1976, which mandates that if the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of 4 two years from the date of institution the entire amount of pension so withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of two years.” 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired on 30/07/2020. It is also not disputed by the respondents that only 90% of the pension and gratuity has been paid and 10% of which are withheld. On pointed query raised by this Court, it was answered by the learned State counsel that no departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner nor any recovery order has been passed. The petitioner retired in the year 2020. The only defence taken by the respondent/State is that some complaint was made against the petitioner, enquiry of which is under consideration but not a departmental enquiry. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, withholding of petitioner’s pension and gratuity for almost 6 years does not appear to be in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the remaining amount of petitioner’s pension and gratuity within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and also pay the arrears from the date of his retirement. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2026.01.31 16:15:31 +0530