1 2025:CGHC:46311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3212 of 2023 1 - Bhuvneshwar Kumar Sinha S/o Late Bhagwat Ram Sinha Aged About 63 Years R/o - Near Om Shanti Bhawan, Magarlod, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Magarlod, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Order on Board 10/09/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the case of the Petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authorities to pay the petitioner his retrial dues of Gratuity amounting to Rs 10,44,780 and Leave Encashment amounting to Rs. 4.99.874 forthwith. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the Respondent Authorities to Pay the Interest on the retrial dues of Petitioner 12% per annum, from Retirement, to Actual realization of such dues. 10.4 That, any other relief(s)/ direction(s)/order(s), which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper, may kindly be pleased to granted in favor of the petitioner in the interest of Justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was appointed on 27/05/1986 to the post of Lower Division Clerk by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Magarlod, and has since served with utmost honesty and sincerity. After completing 33 years of service, the petitioner attained the age of 3 superannuation and retired from the post of Assistant Grade-II on 31/07/2022. Despite being relieved from service, the petitioner has not yet received the dues payable to him, including gratuity and leave encashment, which have been arbitrarily withheld without any justification. Retirement benefits such as gratuity and leave encashment are not mere bounties or acts of social welfare granted at the discretion of the employer, but are statutory rights of the employee, intended to provide financial security and maintain a life of dignity post-retirement. These pensionary provisions must be interpreted liberally to ensure that no employee is denied post-retirement benefits on account of vendetta, technicalities, or administrative negligence. The petitioner’s salary slips, issued by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Magarlod, District Dhamtari, clearly recognize his services as pensionable, thereby entitling him to receive all retirement benefits. These benefits represent the accumulated savings of a lifetime of service and constitute the property of the government employee under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. They are, in fact, a deferred portion of the employee’s earnings, for which the State acts merely as a trustee or custodian. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition seeking redressal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.07.2022, however, despite the 4 completion of all requisite formalities, his retiral benefits, including gratuity and leave encashment, were not released to him in a timely manner. It is contended that the aforementioned dues were eventually disbursed only on 10.08.2023, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than one year from the date of retirement. In view of the delay, it is the petitioner’s case that he is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits, as such delay has caused him financial hardship and is contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has contended that, in view of the fact that both gratuity and leave encashment have already been disbursed to the petitioner within a relatively short span of time, there arises no justification for the grant of interest thereon. It is submitted that the timely release of these retiral benefits obviates any claim for additional financial compensation in the form of interest." 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. it is well settled in law that retiral dues such as gratuity and leave encashment are not discretionary bounties but are rightful entitlements payable to an employee upon retirement. In the present matter, there has been an undue delay of approximately one year in the payment of these dues, which is neither justified 5 nor excusable. Such delay causes unwarranted hardship to the retiree and contravenes established legal principles governing timely disbursal of retiral benefits. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled not only to the principal amounts of gratuity and leave encashment but also to receive interest thereon for the period of delay, to adequately compensate for the financial prejudice suffered due to the employer’s default. 7. In the matter of S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana & Another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules, If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in 9 absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of 6 "bounty" is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents” 8. In the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 49, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “9. In State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, this Court has held that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on the retirement but are valuable rights in their hands, and any culpable de delay in disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest. the said case the Court approved 6% pa interest on the amount of pension decreed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. As to the rate of interest on amount of gratuity, in Section 7(1-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. it is provided that if the amount of gratuity payable is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not 7 exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may by notification specify. It further provides that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in payment is due to the fault of the employee, and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground. In the present case, there is no plea before us that the appellants had sought. any permission in writing from the controlling authority. As to the delay on the part of the employee, it has come on the record that he made representations. Whereafter he filed a suit in respect of withheld amount of gratuity and pension. In Y.K. Singia v. Punjab National Bank, this Court, after discussing the issue relating to interest payable on the amount of gratuity not paid within time. directed that interest 8% p.a. shall be paid on the amount of gratuity. 10. In the light of the law laid down by this Court, as above, and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the impugned order passed by the High Court in respect of interest directed to be paid on the amount of withheld gratuity and pension. We direct that the appellants shall pay interest 6% p.a. on 8 the unpaid amount of pension from the date it had fallen due and interest 8% p.a. on the unpaid amount of gratuity from the date of retirement of the employee.” 9. In light of the facts and circumstances presented in the case, the respondent authorities concerned are hereby directed to disburse the interest on the retiral dues at the rate of 9% per annum, calculated from the date of the petitioner’s retirement. The payment of the said interest, along with the principal retiral dues, shall be made to the petitioner without any undue delay. It is further ordered that such payment should be effected as expeditiously as possible, and, in any event, no later than 90 days from the date on which a certified copy of this order is received by the respondent authorities. 10. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat