1 2025:CGHC:3515 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 518 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Pandey S/o Late Shri P.L. Pandey Aged About 64 Years Retired In-Charge Executive Engineer (Original Post Assistant Engineer), Municipal Corporation, Durg, R/o Street No. 9, New Adarsh Nagar, Potiya, Ward No. 53, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate Urban Administration And Development, Through The Director Indrawati Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Municipal Corporation Durg Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Durg Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 : Shri Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.02.11 21:17:19 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/01/2025 1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the amount of gratuity is not being paid to the Petitioner though so far as pension is concerned 100% pension is being given to the Petitioner. He further submits that the gratuity amount cannot be withheld as it is not a bounty as per the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh v. General Manager, Bishrampur Area of SECL and others, ILR 2017 Chhattisgarh 1222. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the gratuity amount is not a bounty and the respondents authorities are required to pay the same. 2. At this stage, Learned Counsel for the State submits that some departmental inquiry is going on against the Petitioner as such the amount has not been given. Upon query, it has been said that some documents have been filed. On perusal of the documents, it seems that no financial irregularities were found against the Petitioner and it relates to some irregularity in respect of illegal construction made by some other persons in which action has not been taken by the Petitioner according to allegation. 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions and the counter submission made by the State, I deem it appropriate to direct the Respondents authorities to release 75% of the gratuity amount while withholding 25% of the gratuity amount. 4. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of at this stage. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the outcome of the departmental inquiry in accordance with law as nothing has been decided in 3 respect of the merits of the departmental inquiry. Since the departmental inquiry is pending since 9.1.2023 and recently the State Government has issued a circular on 27.6.2024 according to which the departmental inquiry is required to be concluded within a period of 1 year, in view of the said circular, I am of the opinion that the Respondents are required to complete the departmental inquiry within a period of 3 months. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Gopal Singh