1 2025:CGHC:3517 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3287 of 2022 • Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ R.K. Sharma S/o Late Shri Bharat Lal Sharma Aged About 63 Years R/o Sector 8, Street 8, Quarter No. 1d, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture And Farmers Welfare, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director Director Of Agriculture , Chhattisgarh (Department Of Agriculture) , Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Upper Director Directorate Of Agriculture, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Joint Director Agriculture, Division Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5. Deputy Director Directorate Of Agriculture, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/01/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “10.1 Call for records of the case from the respondents. 10.2 Issue appropriate writ(s) / direction(s) / order(s) directing the respondents to grant gratuity along with interest @10% p.a. and all other retiral benefits to the petitioner within a time bound period. 10.3 Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, petitioner was initially appointed on 18.09.1981 on the post of Agriculture Development Officer. He retired from the post of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Durg on 31.07.2021. The respondent No. 5 has recommended the respondent No.4 that since the departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner, therefore, no-dues certificate has not been issued in the favour of the petitioner but as per the provisions contained in proviso to Rule 64(1)(c), 90% gratuity can be paid. 3 Thereafter, vide order dated 17.09.2021, petitioner's 90% pension has been released. But amount of gratuity has not been released till date. Vide order dated 04.06.2018, respondent No. 5 has already directed for payment of 90% gratuity to said Mr. A.K. Naidu, who is a similarly situated employee at par with the petitioner. In that order, pension and gratuity both have been released upto 90%. Despite being well aware about this fact, respondents are harassing the petitioner by not paying the gratuity to him. As per the provisions contained in proviso to Rule 64(1)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, 90% gratuity has to be released to the petitioner. Petitioner has made various representations to the respondents but to no avail. He has categorically stated that gratuity to similarly situated employee namely Mr. A.K. Naidu has been paid but the petitioner is not being considered for the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is entitled to get at least 90% of the gratuity amount as per proviso to Rule 64 (1) (c ) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 as such he is entitled to get the relief as claimed for. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State that the departmental enquiry is going on and unless and until it is decided the petitioner cannot be given gratuity amount the petition is bereft of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The issue raised by the petitioner has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Jharkhand and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in 2013 12 SCC 210 it has been held that gratuity and pension are not bounty and it is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of property. This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 7. In a recent circular dated 27.06.2024 issued by General Administration Department of State Government. Paragraph 2 reads as under:- 2/ शासन के ध्यान में यह आया है किक किभागों ्ቛारा उपरो्ሹानुसार जारी झापनों में किकिहत किनቖኔ शों का पालन समुचि#त रूप से नहीं किकया जा रहा है। किभागीय जां# के ्ቚकरणों को एक ्ቧ, के अन्ቖኔर पूरा करना आश्यक है, लेकिकन कई किभागों ्ቛारा किभागीय जां# की काय,ाही एक ्ቧ, की समयाचि3 में पूरी नहीं की जाती है एं आरोपी शासकीय सेक कई ्ቧ4 तक किनलम्बन में रहते हैं तथा किभागीय जा# समाकि9 उपरांत उन्हें किनलम्बन से बहाल किकया जाता है। यकिቖኔ आरोपी किभागीय जां# में किनቖኔ:्ቧ घोकि्ቧत होता है तो शासन को उसके किनलम्बन काल का पूरा 5 ेतन एं भ्ቈा भी ቖኔेना पड़ता है। इस ्ቚकार शासन ्ቛारा जारी किनቖኔ शों/आቖኔेशों के अनुरूप किभागीय जां# की काय,ाही पूण, करने में बरती जाने ाली कि?लाई के कारण शासन को अनाश्यक रूप से भारी राशिश का भुगतान करना पड़ता है, जबकिक ास्त में किनलम्बन होने से उ्ሹ शासकीय सेक किनलम्बन अचि3 में कोई काय, सम्पाकिቖኔत नहीं करता। 8. Since the departmental enquiry has been initiated way back on 22.08.2016 and in a recent circular dated 27.06.2024 issued by General Administration Department of State Government has directed to conclude the departmental enquiry within a period of one year. 9. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law considering the entire aspect of the matter the respondents authorities are directed to conclude the departmental enquiry itself within a period of 3 months. 10. However so far as the gratuity amount is concerned they can consider the case of the petitioner for grant of gratuity while with holding some percentage of the gratuity amount. 11. With this observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat