1 2025:CGHC:32748 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2258 of 2025 1. Smt. Pratibha Kadwe W/o Late Vinayak Kawde Aged About 49 Years R/o Simran City Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sahil Kumar Kadwe S/o Late Vinayak Kadwe Aged About 26 Years R/o Simran City Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chetan Kumar Kadwe S/o Late Vinayak Kadwe Aged About 25 Years R/o Simran City Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation Through Managing Director, Head Office, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Managing Director (Accounts) Chhattisgarh Ware Housing Corporation, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Karmik Prabandhak Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may be allow the petition and set-aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the respondent no. 2 (ANNEXURE P/1) and direct the respondent to immediately provide the remaining retiral dues of Rs. 21,54,648/- with 12% interest Late Vinayak Kadwe to the petitioner and also SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.16 17:48:50 +0530 2 provide the interest on the delayed payment in view of the fact that the late Vinayak kadwe died on 25.07.2023. 10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the husband of petitioner No. 1 has served about 30 years under the respondent department. He would further submit that during the period of service when he was posted as In-charge Manager at State Warehousing Corporation, Branch Balrampur, he died on 25.07.2023. He would also submit that petitioner No. 1 made a request to the respondent authorities to provide the retiral dues, but the respondent authorities have not paid the amount of EPF and GPF. He would contend that on 05.03.2025, respondent No. 2 issued an order of payment of Rs. 34,35,633/-, but stopped Rs. 21,54,648/-. He would further contend that the respondent authorities have no authority of the law to stop payment and recover any kind of shortage from the amount of Gratuity and EPF as the husband of petitioner No. 1 is no more. He would also contend that no departmental enquiry was pending against the husband of petitioner No. 1 and without holding any enquiry, respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order. He would state that the order passed by respondent No. 2 is bad in law. He would pray to allow the instant petition. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate appearing for respondents would oppose. He would submit that the petitioners have a remedy to prefer an appeal according to the provisions of Regulation 27 of the CG State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations, 1962. He would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents 3 placed on the record. 5. The order dated 05.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) would show that no enquiry was pending against the husband of petitioner No. 1 and no departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Rs. 34,35,633/- was paid to the petitioners but Rs. 21,54,648/- was withheld. The husband of the petitioner is no more and no enquiry can be conducted against him and while he was in service, no enquiry was initiated, therefore the order impugned appears to be erroneous. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that no departmental enquiry was pending against the husband of petitioner No. 1 and no opportunity of hearing was afforded, the order dated 05.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. Consequently, the instant petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant