2025:CGHC:49308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 299 of 2023 1 - Smt. Jamuna Devi Gond W/o Late Shri N. P. Gond Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Loharsi, Tahsil And Police Station Pamgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Controller Food And Medicine Administration Department Chhattisgarh Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension, Byron Bazar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director Food And Medicine Administration Department Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Medical Officer Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jogi, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25.09.2025 1. The husband of petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer on 04.07.1992, serving diligently until termination following a conviction. He was later demoted to Food Inspector, appointed on Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 05.01.2011, and served sincerely until his demise on 10.09.2021, while in service due to serious illness. Despite his service, respondents withheld pensionary benefits, GPF, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, and other retiral dues. The petitioner has repeatedly approached authorities for release of these dues but to no avail, causing significant financial hardship, prompting this petition seeking following reliefs : “10.(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to provide pension scheme continuously to the petitioner w.e.f. date of petitioner's husband demise dated 10.09.2021 as per family pension scheme as early as possible, in the interest of justice. 10.(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to consider pending representation and grant pension regularly and withholding GPF, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, and retiral dues etc. within stipulated time with interest, in the interest of justice. 10.(iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is the wife of N.P. Gond, who was appointed as a Medical Officer on 04.07.1992, and had been performing his duties regularly and sincerely without any complaints. However, the husband of petitioner was later convicted in a criminal case, and pursuant to the order dated 15.05.2015, passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 415/2011, he was terminated from his service. Despite this, the department, after considering his prior service period, demoted him to the post of Food Inspector, where he was reappointed on 05.01.2011, and continued to serve diligently. During his suspension period, the husband of petitioner made a formal request to the department for the payment of his General Provident Fund (GPF), gratuity, and leave encashment amount by a letter dated 19.08.2016. Unfortunately, he suffered from various serious illnesses that rendered him unable to perform his duties, and he ultimately passed away on 10.09.2021. Despite his death, the respondent authorities have not released the pensionary benefits, including GPF, gratuity, leave encashment, and other retiral dues to the petitioner. The petitioner has continuously approached the concerned authorities through representations seeking the release of these withheld dues but has not received any positive response or action. As a result, the petitioner is currently facing severe financial hardship, compelling her to file the present petition for the release of the pensionary benefits and other dues of her deceased husband. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the actions of the respondent authorities are wholly unconstitutional, arbitrary, and discriminatory, and hence unsustainable in the eyes of law. Despite death of husband of petitioner, the respondent authorities have failed to grant the petitioner the rightful benefits of pension, General Provident Fund (GPF), gratuity, leave encashment, and other retiral dues regularly, unjustly withholding these amounts without any valid justification. This denial is not only unlawful but also grossly unjust, given the legitimate entitlement of petitioner under the pension and retiral benefits scheme. Further, the respondent authorities have acted in blatant disregard of the procedural requirements as prescribed by the applicable pension rules. They have neither initiated any formal documentation nor approached the petitioner to process her claim under the family pension scheme. The failure to initiate any pension-related proceedings reflects a clear neglect of duty and an infringement of the rights of petitioner. Despite continuous efforts and repeated requests made by the petitioner to the concerned authorities to release the withheld pension and other retiral benefits, the respondents have remained silent and have taken no constructive steps to address her grievances. The petitioner is a housewife, uneducated and dependent entirely on the income of her deceased husband. She resides with her family members, all of whom were dependent on the earnings of deceased. Since his demise, the petitioner has been left without any source of income and is enduring extreme financial hardship. The refusal of respondent to disburse the pension and retiral benefits has aggravated her economic difficulties, rendering her unable to meet even the basic needs of her family. According to the applicable family pension scheme and relevant government circulars, the petitioner is entitled to receive pensionary benefits, along with GPF, gratuity, leave encashment, and other retiral dues. However, in disregard of these statutory provisions and her legal entitlement, the respondents have unnecessarily withheld these benefits. The petitioner is not at fault, and the failure to release these dues amounts to an illegal deprivation of her lawful rights. Despite submitting formal representations and making earnest requests for the release of her husband’s pensionary benefits and other dues, the petitioner’s appeals have been met with neglect and inaction by the respondent authorities. This continued refusal to grant the rightful dues has subjected the petitioner to severe financial distress and hardship, further compounding the injustice faced by her following the death of her husband. In light of the above, the counsel for petitioner submits that the claim of petitioner for pension and other retiral benefits is valid and enforceable. The petitioner has been deprived of these benefits arbitrarily, contrary to the circulars and rules issued by the State Government. Such deprivation calls for immediate intervention by this Court to ensure that the petitioner receives the benefits lawfully due to her without further delay. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 5. On 18.07.2025, as a last opportunity, this Court granted ten days’ time to the learned State counsel to file a reply in the matter. The order explicitly stated that in the event of non-filing of the reply within the stipulated period, the matter would be heard ex parte, without any reply from the respondents. Subsequently, on 22.09.2025, further time was granted to the learned State counsel to obtain instructions from the concerned departments, and the matter was adjourned for hearing on 25.09.2025. 6. Today, the learned State counsel submits that despite informing the respondent authorities by fax and a letter from the office of the Advocate General, no instructions have been received from the concerned departments, namely the Department of Health and Family Welfare and the Controller Food and Medicine Administration Department. This inaction and lack of response from the respondents are regrettable, considering the serious nature of the grievances raised by the petitioner. 7. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the petitioner, the widow of the deceased employee, has been subjected to undue hardship. The husband of the petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer on 04.07.1992 and served diligently until his termination following a criminal conviction upheld by this Court. Thereafter, he was demoted and reappointed as Food Inspector on 05.01.2011, where he continued to serve sincerely until his demise on 10.09.2021 while suffering from serious illness. Despite his continuous service, the respondent authorities have failed to disburse pensionary benefits, including General Provident Fund (GPF), gratuity, leave encashment, family pension, and other retiral dues to the petitioner. The petitioner has made repeated representations to the respondents, but no substantive response or relief has been provided. No reasons or justifications have been communicated by the respondent authorities for withholding the rightful dues of petitioner. In the absence of any cogent explanation or record to indicate otherwise, the denial of benefits amounts to an illegal and arbitrary act, causing severe financial distress to the petitioner who is a dependent widow, uneducated, and without any other source of income. The entitlement of the petitioner to pension and retiral benefits is governed by the applicable pension scheme and government circulars, which clearly mandate the payment of such dues to the family of the deceased employee. The continued withholding of these benefits by the respondents is a gross violation of the legal rights of petitioner and is unsustainable in law. 8. In view of the foregoing, this Court directs the respondents to release all pensionary benefits including family pension, GPF, gratuity, leave encashment, and other retiral dues to the petitioner within sixty (60) days from the date of this order. These amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of death of the deceased employee till the date of actual payment. 9. Non-compliance with this order shall be treated as a willful and contumacious disregard of the directions of this Court and will invite appropriate punitive action. 10. The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the above directions. Sd/-Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge