1 2025:CGHC:29671-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 400 of 2025 1 - Pramod Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri Yadunandan Prasad Mishra Aged About 67 Years Occupation Retired Government Servant, R/o Hig-I, B-33, Abhilasha Parisar, Tifra Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration Department, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Urban Administration Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Municipal Officer Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.05 17:06:17 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/06/2025 1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant, who was the writ petitioner in the writ petition, against the impugned order dated 18.03.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in WPS No. 5794 of 2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is partly allowed and the petitioner is held entitled for simple interest @ 18% per annum on the part of the retiral dues, which was withheld without any reason, from the date of 26.08.2020 till its realization on 05.05.2022. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was retired from the post of Chief Municipal Officer, Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara on 31.12.2019. Since the salary of the petitioner was withheld for about 28 months, he filed a WPS No. 3157 of 2016. In the said writ petition vide order dated 20.04.2022, the salary and other retiral dues of the petitioner have been paid to him and the said writ petition was disposed of on 05.07.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for interest @ 18% per annum on retiral benefits and other pre-retiral dues, which was withheld by the respondents. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has been decided by the learned Single Judge on 18.03.2025 holding him entitled for simple interest @ 18% per annum on the part of retiral dues, which was withheld without any reason, from the date of 26.08.2020 till its realization on 05.05.2022. 3 3. Learned counsel for the writ appellant would submit that the respondent authorities have withheld the salary of the petitioner for about 28 months and also his retiral dues without any reason and it is only paid on 05.05.2022 after passing of the order dated 20.04.2022 in WPS No. 3157 of 2016. There is no justification for withholding the amount of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has only granted the interest on the retiral dues, but the interest on the pre-retiral dues i.e. salary of the petitioner, which was withheld for about 28 months, have not been granted. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner for withholding of his salary, yet no interest has been granted on that part of his claim. The petitioner is legally entitled for interest on delayed payment of his pre-retiral dues. Therefore, the impugned order may be modified to the extent that the petitioner is entitled for interest @ 18% per annum on delayed payment of his pre-retiral dues also. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supporting the impugned order has submitted that after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering reasons for delay in payment of retiral dues that it was the COVID-19 pandemic period and government offices were closed, delay was caused in payment of retiral dues of the petitioner. He would also submit that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner during his service tenure and during the departmental enquiry, the petitioner got retired on 31.12.2019. It was not possible for the authorities to release the entire dues of the petitioner without conclusion of the departmental 4 enquiry and the same was concluded on 26.08.2020. Therefore, there is justifiable reason for delay in payment of withheld dues of the petitioner and the learned Single Judge has rightly granted the interest @ 18% per annum on his retiral dues for the period in between 26.08.2020 i.e. the date of conclusion of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner and till the date of payment i.e. 05.05.2022. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ appeal as well as the writ petition. 6. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ appeal is to grant of interest @ 18% per annum on delayed payment of pre-retiral benefits, which has been paid on 05.05.2022 along with the post-retiral dues. The justification for withholding the pre-retiral dues was given by the State in their return filed in the writ petition that the petitioner was on medical leave from 24.10.2017 and he was asked to submit the medical certificate duly verified by the medical board. It was also alleged that without auditing the payments have been made by him and he was suspended vide order dated 11.01.2018 and a departmental enquiry was initiated on 03.09.2019 and during the pendency of the departmental enquiry, though he was reinstated, but has been retired on 31.12.2019. Since the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was pending, it was not possible for the authorities concerned to release the entire retiral dues and after conclusion of departmental enquiry on 26.08.2020, the process of releasing the retiral dues to the petitioner was started, but due to COVID-19 pandemic and closure of the offices and involvement of the 5 government machinery in other arrangements, the delay is caused in payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner. Therefore, considering the sufficient explanation for delay in payment of the retiral dues and arrears of salary to the petitioner and also considering the ratio laid down in the order passed by coordinate bench of this Court in WA No. 762 of 2024 (Hari Prakash Beohar v. State of Chhattisgarh and another), decided on 19.11.2024, the learned Single Judge has passed the order on 18.03.2025 granting simple interest @ 18% per annum on the part of the retiral dues, which was withheld from 26.08.2020 to 05.05.2022. 7. Upon perusing the impugned order, we noticed that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while partly allowing the writ petition by the impugned order, has adverted to all the facts and law applicable to the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in it or to grant any further relief to the writ appellant. 8. In view of the foregoing, the writ appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved