1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5395 of 2024 1 - Kanhaiya Lal Prasad S/o Rameshwar Prasad Aged About 63 Years R/o Kuan Bhatta, Ashish Petrol Pump, Korba, P.S. Kotwali, Korba, (C.G.) District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Department Of Water Resources, Shivnath Bhavan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Hasdeo Basin, Department Of Water Resources, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Engineer Water Resources Circle, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 5 - Assistant Director Office Of The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pensions, Bilaspur, Division - Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Ms. Arya Shrivastava, Advocate For State :- Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, P.L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 17.02.2025 1. Heard Ms. Arya Shrivastava, Advocate appears for the petitioner as well as Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, P.L. for the State. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “1. That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus, directing the respondent department to dismiss the objection raised against the Petitioner and return the advance increment that has been deducted from his Pension as the recovery amount because of misinterpretation of the Chhattisgarh Mulbhoot Niyam by the Respondent Department. 2. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent department to release the entire Pension of the Petitioner without any deduction and with interest and all the consequential retiral benefits. 3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the concerned matter. ” 3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was retired from his services as the Sub-Divisional Officer, in the Department of Water Resources, Hasdeo Barrage, Rampur, Korba C.G. on 30.09.2021, at the age of 62. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 23.11.2023, in which the respondents have demanded the recovery of two advance increments granted to the petitioner in 2001. The amount to be recovered, totalling 3 Rs.9,48,275/- was determined by the Assistant Director, Office of the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pensions, Bilaspur, Division-Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur, nearly a year after the petitioner's retirement. The Assistant Director has severely misinterpreted the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules (Moolbhoot Niyam). The language in the Chhattisgarh Moolbhoot Niyam is clear and straightforward, leaving little room for misinterpretation. The petitioner has only been paid 90 percent of his retiral dues and the rest has been withheld by the Respondent Department. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the misinterpretation seems to be intentional in this case. The petitioner has only been paid 90 percent of his retiral dues and pension and the rest has been withheld by the Respondent Department. It is stated that the Respondent authorities sent a letter to the Petitioner dated 31.12.2021, informing him that only ninety per cent of his pension would be paid to him and the remaining ten per cent would be withheld as the recovery amount. Then, the petitioner received another letter by the Respondent department on 08.03.2022, which turned out to be the objection letter, wherein after wrongly interpreting the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules (Moolbhoot Niyam), Respondent authorities had reasoned that the money was wrongly transferred to the Petitioner would be recovered. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted three consecutive representation letters dated 10.02.2023, 4 09.03.2023 and 12.04.2023, wherein he tried to correct the Respondent authorities explaining the error of interpretation made by them because of which the petitioner had to suffer. Later the Respondent again in the letter dated 11.11.2023 answered the letter 26.10.2023 sent by the Respondent authorities demanding an explanation from the Petitioner for non-payment of the recovery amount, wherein he has explained in detail exactly why and how he is eligible for the advance increment and has explained that the Chhattisgarh Moolbhoot Niyam clearly mentions that any degree weather related to engineering or not shall make the engineer eligible for an advance Increment. The Respondents have reasoned that since the Petitioner's master's degree was in English, then he should not he given the advance increment, but they overlooked the fact that a master's in English would increase his productivity and efficiency as an engineer since most of the work these days is done in English. Thereafter, another letter was sent to the Petitioner by the Respondent department for the recovery on 26.10.2023 whereby the petitioner was again reminded to pay the recovery amount and was asked to explain why he had not done so. Thereafter, the Petitioner further submitted two representation letters dated 04.04.2024 and the latest dated 20.08.2024. 5. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that because of the misinterpretation made by the Respondent department, the petitioner could not be made a sufferer and despite several 5 representations regarding the misinterpretation of the concerned documents to the appropriate authorities was made by the petitioner, no action has been taken by the respondent authorities due to which, the petitioner is facing significant financial issues and hardships. Since, the petitioner has been rendered clear of all and any charges and allegations in his no objection letter and there is no any disciplinary action or any court case pending against him, therefore, he is liable to receive his retiral dues without any deduction along with all the other consequential benefits and according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Department of Water Resources has already made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner has been rightly granted two advance increments, therefore, this petition may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that by virtue of retirement, the respondent authorities prepared pension case and forwarded the same alongwith service book of the petitioner before the office of Joint Director, Treasury-Accounts & Pension, Bilaspur for finalization of pension & retiral dues of the petitioner and to pass order. Upon verification of records the Joint Director, Treasury-Accounts & Pension, Bilaspur raised objection that the petitioner was wrongly granted advance increment for the Post Graduate degree of English subject which is other than the Engineering, as such, the petitioner was not entitled for the said benefit. Thereafter, on the 6 basis of the said increment, the petitioner was wrongly granted grade pay of Rs. 6600/- on completion of 25 years of service. It is further submitted that, as per Chapter-24 (Advance in increment) of the Suvidha Handbook, under clause 1(2), the government servant would be entitled for two advance increment for the qualification of degree, which would be related to the department and in the present case, the petitioner had obtained Post Graduate degree in English while he was working as SDO(WRD)/Assistant Engineer in the Water Resources Department, therefore, such degree was not relating to the department. He further submits that as per Rule 25 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if on account of misrepresentation of the government servant the State get loss then, such government servant would be liable individually for such loss and in the present case, petitioner deliberately produced Post Graduate in English subject and received the benefit of increments. It is also stated that the petitioner himself executed an affidavit and stated on oath that, if any excess payment is made and deduction would be made for which 90% amount from his Gratuity would be made. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made and carefully gone through the documents appended with the writ petition. 8. From perusal of the record, the petitioner stood retired from the 7 post of Sub-Divisional Officer, in the Department of Water Resources, Hasdeo Barrage, Rampur, Korba C.G. on 30.09.2021 and on retirement, the petitioner has been paid 90 percent of retiral dues and 10 percent have been withheld on the alleged objection of the office of the Accountant General of having been paid two advance increments wrongly in the year, 2001. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents No.2 to 5 are directed to take an appropriate decision on the claim of the petitioner for settlement of his retiral dues particularly in respect of non releasing of 10 percent of retiral dues which has been withheld. Let an appropriate decision be taken within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. While taking a decision, the concerned respondents shall take into consideration the circular of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Government dated 04.04.1987 in respect of increment which has been granted to the petitioner in the year 2001. 9. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed off with aforesaid direction. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha