1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6201 of 2023 Judgment Reserved On : 27.02.2026. Judgment Delivered On : 09.04.2026. Umakant Mishra S/o Late Gokul Prasad Mishra Aged About 82 Years Retired As Senior Agriculture Development Officer Office Of Joint Director Agriculture Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur, Nehru Chowk, District Bilaspur C.G. R/o Village and Post Baitalpur, District Mungeli C.G. ... Petitioner. versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department, Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.). 2 - State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Its Secretary, Farmers Welfare And Agricultural Development Department, M.P. Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (M.P.) 3 - The Director Directorate Of Agriculture, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Director Directorate Of Agriculture And Farmer Welfare, Vindyanchal Bhawan, Arera Hills, Bhopal (M.P.) 5 - The Joint Director Agriculture Department Bilaspur Division, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - The Joint Director Treasury Accounts, And Pension New Composite Building, Near Collectorate Office, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 7 - (Deleted) Hemant Kumar Guha As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-04-2024. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.04.13 19:55:51 +0530 2 8 - (Deleted) Sharad Rao As Per Honble Court Order Dated-22-04-2024. ... Respondents. For Petitioner : Shri Shivang Dubey along with Ms. Swati Kumari, Advocates. For Respondent Nos.2 and 4 : Shri Manish Nigam, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Deputy Advocate General. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner against various inaction on the part of respondent authorities with respect to the service benefits of the petitioner. Petitioner claims that respondent authorities have not granted petitioner pro-forma promotion from the date of promotion, accrued in favour of petitioner in view of the similarly situated persons. The Petitioner is also aggrieved that he has not been granted interest of @ 18% compound interest (compounded quarterly) on delayed payment of dues of leave encashment, gratuity, arrears of pay and arrears of pension and amount of arrears of above claims after revision of pay fixation order. The Petitioner is seeking compensation to the tune of Rs One crore, as penalty for malicious prosecution by the agencies of the State Government in falsely prosecuting him in corruption case. The petitioner is also seeking payment of double amount of all claims paid to the petitioner i.e. leave encashment, gratuity, arrears of pay, arrears of pension, regular pension and amount of arrears of above claims after revision in pay fixation. 2. By way of this Petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 3 10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire service record of the petitioner. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to grant benefit of selection grade kramonnati. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to grant pro-forma promotion from the date of promotion accrued upon petition in view of the similarly situated person. 10.4 To grants interest of @ 18% compound interest (compounded quarterly) on delayed payment of dues of leave encashment, gratuity, arrears of pay and arrears of pension and amount of arrears of above claims after revision of pay fixation order since due dates of dues to the date of payment of interest. 10.5 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and command / direct respondent to pay compensation of Rs One crore or as Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and Hon'ble Court, please it. 10.6 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and command/direct respondents to make payment of double amount of all claims paid to the petitioner and is being paid to the petitioner leave encashment, gratuity, arrears of pay, arrears of pension, regular pension and amount of arrears of above claims after revision in pay fixation if Hon'ble Court deems it fit and proper in the interest of justice and Hon'ble Court please it. 3. Necessary facts of the case are the petitioner after graduating in Agriculture, had applied for the post of Agriculture Extension Officer, Block Pathariya, District Mungeli (erstwhile Bilaspur) and was appointed by the 4 Director of Agriculture, Madhya-Pradesh, Bhopal for the above said post. The petitioner had joined the said post on 08-08-1962 and he was promoted to the post of Agriculture Assistant Upper Division by the Director of Agriculture, Madhya-Pradesh Bhopal and joined the promotional post on 09-08-1972. The Petitioner throughout his service has been since and honest (Annexure P/1) in his duties. On 07-08-1982, in collusion with two local Political Leaders and very greedy and desperate complainants who succeeded in implicating the petitioner in a malicious, false, and fabricated corruption case by an illegitimate trap due to utter failure of Investigation Officer in discharge of his duties which required intelligence, vigilance, sincerity, and impartiality. On 21-09-1983, an irresponsible sanction order for prosecuting the petitioner for a malicious, false and fabricated corruption case, was issued by Sanctioning Authority i.e. Deputy Secretary Government of Madhya-Pradesh, Law and Legislation Department Secretariat. The Sanctioning authority had put his mechanical signature on draft of sanction order produced by Police. The Investigating Officer has grossly neglected his duties of considering evidence available in Police Case Diary from which allegations recorded against the petitioner in sanction order were sought to be substantiated. All allegations recorded against the petitioner in sanction order are contradictory and proved unreliable by oral and documentary evidence available in Police Case Diary. On 26-03-1983, being charged under Anti-Corruption Act, the petitioner was suspended and attached to the office of Joint Direction of 5 Agriculture, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur. The Suspension order of the petitioner was illegal because as per the rule, an accused employee can be suspended only after filing charge sheet against him in Court, but in the present case, the petitioner was suspended 8 months before filing of charge sheet in compliance to a D.O. letter of Secretary, M.P. Government Agriculture Department Bhopal. In the year 1986 Government of Madhya- Pradesh, Agriculture Department, Secretariate had issued kramonnati order in favor of the petitioner and copy of that order was received in office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, but neither financial advantage of Kramonnati order nor the copy of Kramonnati order was given to the petitioner, citing the reason that the petitioner is suspended and the advantage of Kramonnati shall be given after order of acquittal by the Court. On 12-03-1993, the Petitioner was convicted for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. On 10-06-1993, in view of the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bilaspur, services of the petitioner was terminated by the Director of Agriculture Madhya-Pradesh, Bhopal. The petitioner had filed a Criminal Appeal 252/1993 before Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, therefore, termination order issued on 10/06/1993 was illegal. The termination order was illegal in the light of rule that services of a delinquent employee cannot be terminated once he has filed appeal against judgment of conviction & sentence. Subsequently, the case of the Petitioner was transferred to the hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court. The 6 petitioner filed his written argument in the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur on 21-10-2010. This Hon'ble Court has acquitted the petitioner of all charges and on 27.08.2014, after the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh passed on 10.5.2012 the Petitioner personally submitted an application with all the case record in Raj Bhavan, Raipur addressed to His Excellency Governor of Chhattisgarh for payment of compensation and payment of claims. Application was sent to Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government Agriculture Department Secretariate, Naya Raipur Vide No. 5789/7687/ रास / ज.शि./ 14 dated 05/09/2014 for necessary action but it was in vain. In persuasion to above application, the petitioner wrote several letters to Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, Agriculture Department Secretariate, Raipur, Hon'ble Chief Minister Chhattisgarh Raipur, His Excellency Governor of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Director of Agriculture, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, but nothing has been heard by respondent authorities. The petitioner had personally requested Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh Agriculture Department Secretariate Raipur to kindly consider his pending application for payment of compensation and payment of double amount of all due claims. In view of judgment of acquittal of the petitioner in Cr. Appeal No. 252/1993 delivered by this Hon'ble High Court on 10-05-2012 and letter of His Excellency Governor of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, order to make payment of claims of the petitioner was passed by Chhattisgarh Government Agriculture Department Secretariate, Mahanadi Bhavan Naya Raipur on 21-05-2015 and order to cancel order of 7 termination of the petitioner was passed by Director of Agriculture Madhya Pradesh Bhopal on 10-06-1993 and order of retirement of the petitioner on 31-01-2000 was passed by Director of Agriculture Chhattisgarh, Raipur on 01-11-2015. In view of order to make payment of all claims to the petitioner issued by Chhattisgarh Government, Agriculture Department Secretariate, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur on 21-05-2015, the petitioner had been making requests to Agriculture Department Secretariate, and Director of Agriculture Chhattisgarh Raipur for payment of his claims with advantage of kramonnati & proforma promotion vide letters dated 19-08-2015, 03-09- 2015, 24-09-2015. In view of judgment of acquittal of the petitioner delivered by this Hon'ble Court on 10-05-2012 and orders of Agriculture Department Secretariate Government of Chhattisgarh and Director of Agriculture Chhattisgarh, Raipur, pay fixation order of the petitioner was issued by Joint Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur on 23-02- 2016 and payment of following claims have been made to the petitioner. S.No. Particular of dues Amount paid Due date of payment Actual date of payment 1 Encashment of leave 91,632 01.02.2000 April 2016 2 Gratuity 188991 01.02.2000 May 2016 3 Arrears of pension 20,68,093 01.03.2000 to 01.05.2000 May 2016 4 Arrears of pay 8,30,273 01.05.1983 to 01.02.2000 16.11.2016 4. Point No.1. No interest has been paid for delayed payment of above amount. Point No. 2. Rs. 94000 has been deducted by Joint Director of 8 Agriculture, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur towards Income Tax from Arrears of pay and only Rs. 736273 has been paid. From the perusal of pay fixation order issued by Joint Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur on 23-02-2016, financial advantage of Kramonnati order which was issued during suspension period of the petitioner has not been given to the petitioner and the petitioner has not been granted benefit of pro-forma promotion. The pay-Fixation order was issued on 23.02.2016 by Joint Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, the financial advantage of kramonnati order has not been given to the petitioner. It was told to the petitioner that copy of kramonnati order issued by Government of Madhya- Pradesh, Agriculture Department, Secretariate, is not available with counter-in-charge as it may have been burnt in fire accident occurred in the office. It is pertinent to mention here that Service-Book of the petitioner was found in storeroom amongst waste papers and payment of F.B.A deposits for the period of 01-07-1982 to 30-04-1993 (Rs. 53748) has been made in October 2021 after request by the petitioner and not in April 2016 with payment of F.B.A deposits of previous period (Rs. 39453). The petitioner is deprived of his bonafide claim due to carelessness and mismanagement of the office of Joint Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) . The petitioner has attempted to obtain the kramonnati order from Director of Agriculture, Madhya-Pradesh, Bhopal and Secretary Government of Madhya-Pradesh, Agriculture Department, Secretariate, through RTI, but the Kramonnati order was not given for reasons stated by Directorate and 9 Secretariate in letters dated 23-05-2017, 08-09-2017 and 17-02-2022. The petitioner has been requesting Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Agriculture Department, Secretariate and Director of Agriculture, Chhattisgarh, Raipur vide letters dated 29-03-2016, 27-05-2016 and 18-08- 2016 for benefits of kramonnati and pro-forma promotion. The Director of Agriculture Chhattisgarh, Raipur had informed to Under Secretary Chhattisgarh Government, Agriculture Department Secretariate and to the petitioner that petitioner's application for kramonnati and promotion was received in Directorate and action as per rule was being taken, these letters are collectively filed herewith but benefits of kramonnati and pro-forma promotion has not been given to the petitioner yet. The petitioner came to know that pension of Shri Hemant Kumar Guha, who retired in the year 2000-2001 as Assistant Director of Agriculture (Horticulture) who had also started his service on the post of Agriculture Assistant Lower Division and was also working in the post of Agriculture Assistant Upper Division on the date of trap incidence against the petitioner, is Rs. 17000 more than the petitioner's pension, because he has got advantages of kramonnati and promotion. The entry of kramonnati and promotion order has been made in his Service-Book, which has resulted in the enhanced pension, therefore, the petitioner made attempts to obtain certified photocopy of Service-Book of Shri Hemant Kumar Guha, who retired from Jashpur-Nagar in 2000- 2001, PPO No. 09/A/1713 and Shri Sharad Rao, Retired Assistant Soil Survey Officer retired from Bilaspur in 2004-2005, PPO No. / Sa. Sa. / 10 Pen / 09-1/C/7188, but certified photocopy of above Service-Books have not been given to the petitioner on the ground enumerated in letters of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur, Director of Agriculture, M.P. Bhopal, Director of Horticulture, Chhattisgarh Raipur and Joint Director of Treasury, Account and pension Bilaspur. In aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner had no other recourse except to request Joint Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur on 18.10.2021 for revision of pay Fixation order in view of entries made in Service-Book of Shri Hemant Kumar Guha and Shri Sharad Rao, but petitioner's request has been held imaginary and absurd by Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in letter issued on 23-11-2021. This letter is illegal and is attempted to escape from bona fide duties, because like the petitioner, Hemant Kumar Guha had joined as Agriculture Assistant Lower Division and on the date of trap incidence against the petitioner i.e. 07-08-1982, the petitioner was working on the post of Agriculture Assistant Upper Division, Senior Agriculture Development Officer and on these dates Shri Hemant Kumar Guha and Shri Sharad Rao were also working on the post of Agriculture Assistant Upper Division. They have got promotion on post of Assistant Director of Agriculture and Assistant Soil Survey Officer, respectively. After judgment of clear acquittal by Hon'ble Court, an employee is entitled for all benefits including benefit of pro-forma promotion. Hence, after judgment of clear acquittal delivered by this Hon'ble Court on 10-05-2012 the petitioner is entitled for all benefits 11 including benefit of pro-forma promotion as well as kramonnati. Petitioner's order for Kramonnati was received in the office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur during suspension period of the petitioner and attachment to the office of Joint Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur but neither financial benefits of kramonnati order, nor copy of kramonnati order was given to the petitioner because the petitioner was under suspension, therefore, it was duty of office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur to keep safe the kramonnati order until final judgment of petitioner's corruption case. The petitioner is suffering due to carelessness and mismanagement of the office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur. In letter dated 23-11-2021, the petitioner has been asked to obtain Service-Book of Shri Hemant Kumar Guha and Shri Sharad Rao from office of their establishment or concerned Joint Director of Treasury, Account and pension, but as enumerated hereinabove above authorities have denied to give certified copy of service books to the petitioner. The petitioner again on 20-12-2021 gave representation to Joint Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur and attempted to convince apropos genuineness of his request of making revision in pay fixation in view of entries made in Service-Book of Shri Hemant Kumar Guha and Shri Sharad Rao, but nothing has been heard so far. When no heed was paid by concerned Authorities for payment of claims, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing NO W.P.(S)/ 5232/2017 before this Hon'ble Court and on 12 23/03/2022 during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner withdrew the aforesaid writ petition with liberty to file a duly constituted writ petition. Relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble Court is quoted as under for ready reference of this Hon'ble Court: "Counsel appearing for petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a duly constituted fresh writ petition, (prayer is allowed) The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty". That, after withdrawal of W.P.S/5232/2017, a new W.P.S/3798/2022 has been filed before this Hon'ble Court, but unfortunately learned Advocate Shri R.S. Patel has deleted important submissions and has not filed important papers and thereby has weaken petitioner's case, therefore, the petitioner has made complaint against learned advocate Shri R.S. Patel to the Chairman State Bar Council Chhattisgarh Bilaspur. For reasons given in above point and complaint letter of the petitioner, the petitioner preferred to withdraw WPS/3798/2022 and file a properly constituted WPS. First WPS/5232/2017 was filed in Hon'ble Court on 06/09/2017. The petitioner is 82 years old, therefore, the same may be considered while deciding this Writ Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under MP Service Rules/ General Service Rules after judgment of clear acquittal by the Court, employee is entitled for all benefits including benefits of pro-forma promotion, therefore, after judgment of very clear acquittal delivered by this Court on 10.05.2012, the petitioner is entitled to all benefits of pro-forma promotion. He submits that kramonnati order of the petitioner issued by 13 Government of Madhya Pradesh, Agriculture Department, Secretariate was received in office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in the year 1986 or so, but financial benefits of kramonnati was not given to the petitioner. It was further stated that advantage of kramonnati would be extended to the petitioner after acquittal of the petitioner by the Competent-Court. Because, in pay fixation order of the petitioner issued by Joint Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, the petitioner has not been given advantage of above mentioned kramonnati order and proforma promotion. It was further stated by Section in Charge that there was no provision of Kramonnati before 1999 but it is proved by letters of Agriculture Department Director at Agriculture Department Secretariate, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal that Kramonnati orders of Agriculture Assistant Upper Division - Senior Agriculture Development Officer have been issued by Agriculture Department Secretariate, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal to other employees. The petitioner is being deprived of his bonafide claim due to carelessness and mismanagement of the office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur (C.G.). He submits that the respondent authorities have made payments to the petitioner, but no interest has been paid on delayed payments of dues. Further, this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has ample powers to be exercised in appropriate and deserving cases to award interest, in case of inordinate delay, attributable wholly to the employer in settling the retiral dues, an employee can claim interest under part III of the Constitution 14 relying on articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution. He further submits that in Shripati Tripathi vs State of U.P. and Other's [2011(I) E.S.C. 357 (All.) (D.B) the principles, which can be culled out from the aforesaid judgments are that where State employer is not able to justify delay in payment of arrears of salary, settlement of retiral dues or terminal benefits, and it is found by the Court that the delay is wholly attributable to the State employer, the interest on such arrears of pay, pension and other retiral dues payable under the statutory rules, or even if they are not covered by statutory rules, must be paid to such employee." And reason for delay in payment of dues to the petitioner is a corruption case against the petitioner, otherwise the petitioner would have worked peace- fully, joyfully, gracefully, and uninterruptedly and received his all dues on due dates. State Government is fully responsible for the Corruption Case against the petitioner, because the petitioner had been always honest and sincere to his duties, the petitioner was falsely implicated in a malicious and wholly fabricated corruption case as a result of the collusion between two local political leaders and certain greedy and desperate complainants, who orchestrated an illegal and illegitimate trap. The same was facilitated by the gross failure and dereliction of duty on the part of the Investigating Officer, who failed to act with the intelligence, vigilance, sincerity, and impartiality required in the discharge of his official functions. The petitioner was prosecuted in Court due to gross negligence of duties by sanctioning authority and without any evidence against the petitioner, therefore, State 15 Government is fully responsible for the corruption case against the petitioner and thereby wholly responsible for delay in payments of dues to the petitioner, therefore State Government is liable to pay interest on delayed payment of dues to the petitioner since due dates of dues to the date of payment of interest. Because, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government Servant immediately after his retirement cannot be overemphasized. It would not be unreasonable to direct the payment of penal interest on such dues at current market rate at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held reasonable payment of penal interest at current market rate. Further, to decide interest rate in view of interest rate charged by Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Bilaspur following calculation is being made because information of interest rate of before the year of 2015-16 was said to be not available with the Bank. During the years 2015-16 to 2019-20 when average of normal interest rate paid by Chhattisgarh State Government on G.P.F deposits is 8.06% , then average of normal interest rate charged by Chhattisgarh State Gramin Bank, Bilaspur for personal loan is 14.26%, therefore, for the year 1984-85 to 2019-20 when average of normal interest paid by Chhattisgarh State Government on G.P.F deposits is 9.96% , then average of normal interest rate charged by Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Bilaspur for personal loan can be taken as 14.26 x 9.96/ 8.06=17.62%. Current market rate of interest during the years 1984-85 to 2019-20 has been very higher than 16 calculated 17.62% charged by Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Bilaspur. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Bilaspur has informed to charge penal rate of interest in case of default in repayment of loan on due date. It is pertinent to mention that Chhattisgarh State Government also makes payment of penal interest on G.P.F. deposits in appropriate cases. Banks make payment of interest quarterly and State Government has issued order to compound interest quarterly. Therefore, compounding of interest quarterly is reasonable. Again, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Bilaspur has informed that in loan accounts, it is charged in end of every month which is compounded with balance loan amount and becomes payable. State Government is liable to pay and makes payment of pay and pension every month to its employees. Therefore, compounding of interest in end of every month is reasonable for delayed payment of pay and pension arrears bills of pay and pension. Because, in the matter of Shripati Tripathi (supra), hon'ble Allahabad High Court has said "This interest paid is as penalty not only for mitigating the hardships suffered in depriving the employee of his right to receive the amount due to him within reasonable period of time and also on the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to receive retiral dues / terminal dues is closely linked to his right of self-respect and human dignity, which is included in right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India". Hardship suffered by the employee and damage made to self-respect and human dignity of the employee can be mitigated by payment of interest to 17 the employee on higher rates than the employee has paid in market / was required to pay in market, therefore, award of 18% compound interest (compounded quarterly) appears reasonable. Because, in O.P. Gupta versus Union of India and others [1987 UPLBEC 583 (S.C.) para 24 Hon'ble Supreme Court has said", Normally, this Court as settled practice, has been making direction for payment of interest at 12% on delayed payment of pension. There is no reason for us to depart from that practice in the fact of the present case". Obviously, direction for payment of interest is made in view of fact of particular case. In some case interest has been limited to 10% and even 6% but in some case, direction has been made for payment of 18% interest e.g. in R. Kapur versus Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication) Income Tax and another [(1995) 1 UPLBEC 89] Supreme Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded 18% interest. In Vijaya L. Mehrotra versus State of UP and others [(2000) 2 UPLBEC 1599] Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made direction for payment of 18% simple interest due to delay of many months in making payment of dues without any reason or justification. In petitioner's case reason for delay in payment of dues to the petitioner is a corruption case against the petitioner and as submitted in above the petitioner is not responsible even in the least and State Government is fully responsible for the Corruption Case against the petitioner, therefore, State Government is wholly responsible for delay in payment of dues to the petitioner. As given in table of payment to appellant Vijay L. Mehrotra were delayed by 3 18 months to 25 months and as given in table of payments, payment of petitioner's dues were delayed by 194 months to 402 months and Kramonnati and proforma promotion benefits have not been made as yet due to mismanagement and inaction of Government Offices. In petitioners case, all family members were dependent on the petitioner, the petitioner had to manage not only to feed himself and family members but also to face corruption case. Education, employment and marriage of children suffered due to petitioner being falsely implicated in the corruption case. Petitioner's payments were delayed due to utter failure of Investigation Officer and gross negligence of Sanctioning authority in discharge of their duties and deliberate illegal orders of Director of Agriculture Madhya Pradesh Bhopal, therefore nonpayment of dues to the petitioner had posed very much hardships and had posed adversities and threats not only to self-respect and human dignity of the petitioner and his family members but also to real existence of the petitioner and his family members, therefore, a higher rate of interest more than 18% simple interest awarded by Hon'ble Supreme Court to Vijay L. Mehrotra is warranted in this case. However, instead of praying for making proportionate and concordant increase in interest rate to pray for award of 18% compound interest [compounded quarterly] appears to be moderate and better option because direction for payment of 18% interest has been made by Hon'ble Courts in many cases and payment and recovery of compound interest is routine procedure adopted is Government and Banks. Because, 94000 have been deducted 19 towards income tax from petitioner's arrears bill of pay for the period of 01.04.1983 to 31.01.2000 total and only 7,36,273 has been paid to the petitioner by Joint Director of Agriculture Bilaspur Division Bilaspur because, salary of 16 years and 9 months i.e.17 years has become income of one financial year 2016-17 in which payment has been made. State Government is responsible for the corruption case against the petitioner and thereby for withholding regular payments to the petitioner and accumulation of amounts and thereby for deduction towards income tax, therefore, State Government is liable to compensate this loss made to the petitioner therefore higher rate of interest (18% compound interest compounded quarterly) is justified also to compensate this loss made to the petitioner by delayed payment. Because, although award of 18% compound interest (compounded quarterly) does not appear precedented but facts of this case are also unprecedented and interest rate is decided in view of facts of a particular case for mitigating hardships suffered by the employee in depriving the employee of his right to receive the amount due to him within reasonable period of time and also on the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, in view of facts and circumstances of this case submitted above award of 18% compound interest (compounded quarterly) appears very much reasonable. Because, it is well-settled Law, that on the fault of the State authorities a person should not suffer in any manner [Amarjeet Singh and Others Vs Devi Ratan and Others [(2010) 1 SCC 417 9 [Para 16)], in S.Nambi 20 Narayanan Vs SIBY MATHEWS and Other (2018) 10 Supreme Court Case 804, Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded compensation of 50 Lac for wrongfully implicating ISRO Scientist in a spyism case. In total ISRO Scientist S. Nambi Narayanan has been paid compensation of 1.9 crore. Because, the petitioner has been made to face defamation and humiliation, mental & physical harassment and financial & other losses for very long period of 30 years and even now petitioner feels humiliation due to a malicious and absolutely false and fabricated corruption case for which State Government is fully responsible. The petitioner has been made to make huge expenses to get rid of the Corruption Case, which alone amounts to more than 50 Lac in terms of land property. State Government is liable to compensate all above sufferings and losses made to the petitioner by the Corruption Case by way of payment of compensation because the petitioner is not responsible for the Corruption Case even in the least and State Government is fully responsible for the Corruption Case against the petitioner. Because, State Government is directly and fully responsible for the Corruption Case against the petitioner because overlooking object of Sec. 5 A of the Act (Protection of the public servants against harassment and victimization in investigation of corruption cases), State Government had authorized Police Inspector for investigation of Corruption Cases, who were not to be believed implicitly, therefore, they were not authorized for investigation of Corruption Case by Legislature under Sec. 5 A of the Act and defeating object of Sec 6 of the Act 21 (Safeguard of the public servants against frivolous and vexatious prosecution), State Government had accorded irresponsible and invalid sanction for prosecution of the petitioner in Court for a malicious and absolutely false and fabricated Corruption Case. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel for respondent/State of C.G submits that while the petitioner was posted as Assistant Project Officer, Block Pathariya District Bilaspur (MP) as public servant on 07/08/1982 (at present Block Pathariya District Mungeli (CG)) had demanded illegal gratification/bribe other than legal remuneration of an amount of Rs. 200/- from complainant Nihchal Singh for giving certificate of availability of water in his bore for electric connection and upon the complaint the petitioner was caught red handed while receiving the illegal gratification of Rs. 200/- and thereafter FIR has been registered at Crime No. 66/1982 before the Police Station EOW/ACB Bhopal for the offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and thereafter vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12/03/1993 passed by the Court of Learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption act, 1947 Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case No. 26/1992 whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 161 of IPC, 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year & pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for three months on both 22 counts. It is submitted that as per Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification: Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 deals with the suspension, Proviso to Rule 9(1) provides that "Provided that a government servant shall invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed against him.". Initially owing to registration of FIR vide order dated 26/03/1983, the petitioner was suspended and thereafter owing to the conviction of the petitioner on 12/03/1993, the services of the petitioner was terminated by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh through the Director, Agriculture, Madhya Pradesh as per the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Jabalpur being Criminal Appeal No. 252/1993. However, after reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh as per the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000, the State of Chhattisgarh came into being with effect from 01/11/2000 and the High Court of Chhattisgarh has also been constituted in the State of Chhattisgarh and accordingly the said Criminal Appeal No. 252/1993 has been transferred to this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court vide its judgment and order dated 10th May, 2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 252/1993, Umakant Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now the State of Chhattisgarh) has been pleased to allow the appeal and the conviction and sentences imposed 23 upon the appellant under sections 161 of IPC and 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention Corruption Act is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges by giving benefit of doubt. After superannuation the petitioner had submitted various representations to the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh as well as to the answering respondents/State of the Chhattisgarh for reinstatement. As termination of the petitioner has been done by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh way back in the year 1993 and therefore the competent authority for reinstatement is the State of Madhya Pradesh and not the State of Chhattisgarh as on that date the State of Chhattisgarh was not came into being and the same has been carved out only on 01/11/2000 as per the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000. Thereafter as per the order No. F 8-1/2014/14-1 Naya Raipur of the State Government, Department of Agriculture (CG) dated 21/05/2015 the Director, Directorate of Agriculture, Chhattisgarh vide its order dated 01/12/2015 has been pleased to cancel the termination order of the petitioner dated 10/06/1993 and accordingly in furtherance to the above order dated 01/12/2015 as per the date of birth of the petitioner i.e. 06/01/1940, the petitioner has been treated to be superannuated with effect from 31/01/2000. Accordingly, all the admissible dues have been duly paid to the petitioner immediately after issuance of the order for which the petitioner was not entitled as from bare perusal of the order dated 21/05/2015 (Annexure-P-8), it is revealed that against the termination order the petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 252/1983 before the 24 Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur (MP) and thereafter vide order dated 10/05/2012 of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh the order of termination dated 10/06/1993 has been set aside and it has been directed to provide all the dues to the petitioner, whereas the said appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12th March, 1993 issued by the Court of Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case No. 26/92 and not termination order dated 10/06/1993 and further vide the judgment dated 10th May, 2012, the appeal of the petitioner has been allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence has been set aside by giving benefit of doubt to the petitioner and the said acquittal is not honourable acquittal. Further by the said judgment, the Hon'ble Court has not directed for payment of any dues to the petitioner. It is important to mention here that the termination of the petitioner has been issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh prior to reorganization of the State of Chhattisgarh on 10/06/1993 and therefore it is appropriate that an order be issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh and not by the State of Chhattisgarh and further the petitioner has been treated to be superannuated with effect from 31/01/2000 as per the date of birth of the petitioner which is also prior to the date when the State of Chhattisgarh came into being and thus the benefit which was extended to the petitioner by the respondents/State way back in the year 2015 and 2016 be verified accordingly and it is appropriate for the petitioner to redress the grievance from the respondents No.2 & 25 4/State of Madhya Pradesh and not from the respondents/State of C.G. In the respectful submission of the respondent/State of CG, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches which have been unexplained by the petitioner as the cause of action for the petitioner initially accrues in the year 1993 when the services of the petitioner has been terminated and thereafter in the year 2012 when the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges or within a reasonable period and the petitioner has preferred the present petition after inordinate delay of about 31 years and 12 years respectively. Therefore, the petitioner was sleeping over his legal right, as such the petitioner does not deserve any relief and the petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and latches. Reliance has been placed on decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. Through its Chairman & Managing Director v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322, Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2010) 12 SCC 471, State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R. K. Zalpuri, (2015) 15 SCC 602. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and 4/State of Madhya Pradesh submits that the last service rendered by the petitioner, both prior and subsequent to coming into force of Reorganization Act falls within the territorial jurisdiction and administrative control of State of Chhattisgarh, as such, it is contended by him that the authorities of State of Madhya Pradesh have no role whatsoever in the matter. 26 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition. 9. From the perusal of record, it appears that petitioner is a retired Senior Agricultural Development Officer who was posted in the office of Joint Director Agriculture, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur. Presently petitioner is aged about 82 years. On 26.03.1983, petitioner was suspended as against him a case under Prevention of Corruption Act was filed, he was accordingly tried. Thereafter, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.93 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case No.26/92 the petitioner was convicted under Section 161 of the IPC and 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for three months on both counts. The petitioner challenged the same via Criminal Appeal No.252 of 1993 and this Court vide judgment dated 10.05.2012 allowed the criminal appeal and conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner were set aside and he was acquitted of the said charges. As a consequence thereof, the order of dismissal of service dated 10.06.1993 passed against the petitioner was cancelled by the concerned authorities vide order dated 01.11.2015 and petitioner was declared superannuated with effect from 31.01.2000 considering this date of birth as 06.01.1940. Thereafter, petitioner filed application (Annexure P/9) before respondent authorities for grant of Krammonati and promotion stating that 27 his juniors have been promoted but he has not been promoted due to pendency of criminal case. 10.It further appears that petitioner filed a petition bearing WPS No.5232 of 2017 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.3.2022 reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file a duly constituted fresh writ petition and this way, this Writ Petition has been filed. 11.So far as grant of reliefs to the petitioner is concerned, he is seeking selection grade Kramonati as well as proforma promotion from the date of promotion accrued in his favour in view of similarly situated persons. He is also seeking 18 % compound interest (compounded quarterly) upon delayed payments in respect of leave encashment, gratuity, arrears of pay and arrears of pension, he is also seeking arrears of said claims after revision of pay fixation order. The petitioner is further seeking compensation of Rs.1 crores as well as appropriate direction to the respondents to make double amount of all claims paid to the petitioner i.e. leave encashment, gratuity, arrears of pay, arrears of pension, regular pension and amount of arrears of above claims after revision in pay fixation. 12.Now the question for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner can be granted aforesaid reliefs when admittedly the petitioner got retired on 31.01.2000 since he faced criminal charges under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and as such, a criminal case was instituted against him and he was suspended and later on upon conviction, 28 he was dismissed from services way back on 10.06.1993. At that time, petitioner was having 7 years of service in his hands and due to conviction, he was deemed to be retired on 31.01.2000 considering his date of birth to be 06.01.1940. 13.From the aforesaid, it transpires that petitioner was out of service from 10.06.1993 i.e. dismissal from service till 10.05.2012, when the conviction of the petitioner was set aside by this Court and he was acquitted of the charges. 14.The law in this respect is well settled that service benefits to the employee can considered after his acquittal from the criminal charges and in the present matter, petitioner got judgment of acquittal on 10.05.2012. As such, before that date, petitioner could not be granted service benefits. After acquittal, when the application was moved by the petitioner which was duly considered by the respondent authorities and his order of termination was set aside and his services were considered to be regular service till his date of retirement i.e. 31.01.2000. However, reliefs as claimed by the petitioner in respect of leave encashment, gratuity, arrears of pay, arrears of pension, regular pension as also other service benefits viz Krammonati, proforma promotion cannot be given to the petitioner as admittedly he was not in services since 1993 to 31.01.2000 i.e. date of superannuation. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, has categorically held that no retrospective service benefits can be granted 29 from a date when an employee was not borne in the cadre, as such action would disturb settled rights and is contrary to service jurisprudence and it was held thus:- “19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das, wherein it was observed as follows: “18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai10 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab12, a three-Judge Bench observed thus: 41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below: ‘4……. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under 30 Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.’ 42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her's fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27: ‘Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the ‘State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws’. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: ‘there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State’. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word “employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, 31 which is his personal right. “Promotion” based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1). * * * 27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.13, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana14, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being “considered” for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be “considered” for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.’ “20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India16, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P., in the following words: ‘37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that when 32 promotion is outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotes, it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits…… 38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision.” 16.In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no merit in the claims advanced by the petitioner. The petitioner, having remained out of service from the date of his dismissal till the date of acquittal and having already been extended consequential retiral benefits upon cancellation of the dismissal order, is not entitled for grant of selection grade (Kramonnati), proforma promotion, payment of 18% compound interest on delayed dues, compensation of Rs. 1 crore, or double payment of retiral benefits. The 33 judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and do not advance his case in the peculiar circumstances of the present matter. 17.Accordingly, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 27.02.2026 09.04.2026 ------ 13.04.2026