1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9436 of 2023 1 - M.M. Shah S/o Late Munir Mohammad Shah Aged About 67 Years R/o H. No. C/ 291, Vallabh Nagar In Front Of Sant Gyaneshwar Higher Secondary School Behind The Arihant Complex Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District- Raipur, Cg- 492001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority Civil Line Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Engineer In Chief Rural Engineering Service Vikas Bhawan , Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Engineer Mukhya Mantri Rural Road Development Project Vikas Bhawan, Civil Line Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Superintendent Engineer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority Project Circle Durg, Near Nalanda School Rrnmu Building Kohaka Road , Kurud , Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Joint Director Kosh Lekha And Pension, Durg, Division, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For State :- Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is not challenging any particular order however the petitioner aggrieved inaction of respondent authorities whereby the competent authorities not granting compensation/damages/interest for delay payment of retiral benefit particularly amount of pension and gratuity. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for entire Records from the office of the respondents in respect of petitioner's claim. 10.2. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide compensation/damages at the rate of 12% as well as litigation expenses to the Petitioner for delay payment of pension and gratuity amount. 3 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub- Engineer in the year 1984 and, after rendering sincere and unblemished service, was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in 2012 and retired on 30.06.2019 while posted in the office of respondent No. 05; it is respectfully submitted that till the date of retirement there was no complaint, inquiry or disciplinary proceeding pending or decided against the petitioner, however, after retirement the respondents failed to release the retiral dues including pension and gratuity and granted only 80% anticipatory pension despite repeated representations, on the ground of an objection raised by respondent No. 06 dated 06.08.2019 regarding grant of Grade Pay of ₹6,600/- after completion of 25 years of service, though the said Grade Pay was subsequently approved by the State and full pension and gratuity were released only on 02.06.2023, but no interest was paid for the inordinate and unjustified delay, causing severe financial loss and mental agony to the petitioner, and therefore, as per settled principles of service law, the petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, hence the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the issuance of a No Dues Certificate in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was not granted his retiral dues, i.e., pension, gratuity, 4 leave encashment, and other service benefits, for a considerable period of about three years. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2019, whereas his retiral dues were released only on 02.06.2023. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount which was not released in a timely manner, and accordingly, the present petition has been filed. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that a departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner, and therefore the aforesaid amounts were not released. However, to substantiate this contention, the learned State Counsel has failed to file or place on record any document to show that any departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on a notice dated 24.01.2023, which is purported to have been issued against the petitioner after his retirement on 30.06.2019. Even pursuant to the said notice, no proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, the ground raised by the respondent-State that the service dues were withheld due to a departmental enquiry is untenable, and it cannot be said that there was no delay in the payment of retiral dues. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that any departmental enquiry was ever 5 initiated or pending against the petitioner either prior to or after his retirement. Further, the respondents have failed to place on record any material whatsoever to show that there existed any plausible or legally sustainable reason for withholding or delaying the release of the petitioner’s retiral and service dues. 8. It is well settled that retiral benefits such as pension, gratuity, and leave encashment are not a matter of bounty but constitute a valuable right accrued to an employee upon retirement. In the absence of any lawful justification, the withholding of such dues for a prolonged period is arbitrary, unjustified, and violative of the petitioner’s legal rights. In the present case, the petitioner retired on 30.06.2019, yet his retiral dues were released only on 02.06.2023, resulting in an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly three years. 9. The explanation sought to be offered by the respondent-State, namely the pendency of a departmental enquiry, remains wholly unsubstantiated and unsupported by any documentary evidence. Mere assertions, without any material on record, cannot justify the deprivation of retiral benefits for such a substantial period. Consequently, this Court finds that the delay in payment of service dues is attributable solely to the respondent authorities. 10. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the delayed payment of retiral and service dues, calculated from the date the amounts 6 became due till the date of their actual release. The aforesaid interest shall be paid to the petitioner within a stipulated period, failing which the same shall carry further consequences in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition is hereby disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha