1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7757 of 2023 1 - Bodhram Sahu S/o Chheduram Sahu Aged About 69 Years Retd. Pro In Rajya Van Vikas Nigam, R/o Bandhwa Para Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited Ekatma Path Office Campus, Block 07, Sector 24, In Front Of Punjab National Bank, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Manager (Administration) Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited, Lokash Plaza, Shankar Nagar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Manager Industrial Plantation Division, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited, Station Road Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 4 - Secretary (Forest) Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Forest Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhwaha, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 09/10/2025 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking relief against the illegal recovery of Rs. 59,767/- from the gratuity of petitioner and the non- payment of leave encashment amounting to Rs. 3,41,588/-. The said leave encashment was paid only after a delay of 11 months following Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 the retirement of petitioner, along with 10% interest. However, the petitioner has yet to receive interest on a sum of Rs. 56,790/- from the date of retirement, i.e., 30.09.2015, which the respondent department has failed to provide till date. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition seeking following relief : “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to suitable writ/order/ direction by to the respondent authorities to release the amount of Rs. 59767/- with 10% interest and also provided the interest on Rs. 56790/- from the date of retirement till the payment and also provided 10% interest for delay payment of leave encashment amount i.e. Rs. 341588/- which has been paid 11 months delay. 10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner, after rendering long and dedicated service spanning nearly four decades, specifically from 05.09.1976 to 30.09.2015, retired from his official duties. His period of service extends to a total of thirty-nine years, reflecting a sustained commitment to his responsibilities. The superannuation of petitioner from service is duly documented. Subsequent to the retirement of petitioner, he approached this Court seeking the rightful dues of gratuity and leave encashment. The petitioner had earlier instituted proceedings against the respondent before this Court, wherein the Court, by its order dated 07.09.2022, directed the respondent to pay the gratuity amount due to the petitioner along with 3 interest at the rate of 10%. However, while the gratuity was thus acknowledged and ordered to be paid with interest, the leave encashment amounting to Rs. 3,41,588/- was paid only after an undue delay of eleven months post-retirement. The petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% on this sum from the date of retirement, which has not been paid. Further, there has been an illegal deduction of Rs. 59,767/- from the gratuity amount of petitioner which remains unaddressed. Additionally, a sum of Rs. 56,790/-, which ought to have been disbursed promptly after the retirement of petitioner, was not paid until 2018, and no interest on this delayed payment has been granted to the petitioner. It is pertinent to highlight that these issues concerning the illegal deduction, delayed payment, and non-payment of interest were not adjudicated or touched upon in the said order dated 07.09.2022, by which the earlier petition was disposed of. The efforts made by petitioner to secure the due payments and appropriate relief continued beyond the earlier proceedings. The respondent, through official correspondence dated 30.05.2019 and 01.04.2019, addressed letters to the Regional General Manager seeking direction or resolution in the matter. Despite these representations, the Regional General Manager of Chhattisgarh Van Rajya Vikas Nigam has not passed any orders or taken concrete action based on these recommendations. The petitioner, undeterred, has repeatedly submitted applications and letters seeking redressal, specifically on 01.06.2020 and 09.05.2022, to which the respondent has regrettably remained unresponsive. The earlier petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2018, laid the foundation for these proceedings. Since then, significant developments have occurred, highlighting the need for proper adjudication and 4 enforcement of the legitimate dues of petitioner. It is manifestly clear that the petitioner is entitled to receive the deducted sum of Rs. 59,767/- along with interest at the rate of 10% calculated from the date of his retirement. The leave encashment amount of Rs. 3,41,588/-, which was disbursed belatedly on 06.09.2016, nearly eleven months after the retirement date, also merits interest at 10% from the date of retirement. Furthermore, the sum of Rs. 56,790/-, paid on 04.01.2019, should likewise attract interest at the prescribed rate from the retirement date. Despite repeated representations made by the petitioner regarding these dues, the respondent has neither responded nor taken the necessary steps to comply with these financial obligations. The prolonged delay on the part of the respondent in paying the sum of Rs. 56,790/-, the illegal deduction of Rs. 59,767/- from the gratuity of petitioner, and the failure to pay interest on the delayed disbursement of the leave encashment amount of Rs. 3,41,588/- constitute arbitrary and unlawful conduct on the part of the respondent. The petitioner is undeniably entitled to the recovery of the illegally deducted amount along with compound interest for the period of delay in payment of the said amounts. Such inaction and non- compliance by the respondent are unjust and contravene the principles of natural justice and equity. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has acted in a manifestly arbitrary, punitive, and discriminatory manner towards the petitioner. Despite the petitioner having faithfully served the respondent for a continuous period of nearly four decades, the respondent has exhibited a gross lack of fairness and equity in 5 discharging its obligations post-retirement. The delay of nearly four years in making payment of Rs. 56,790/- to the petitioner, which was due from the date of his retirement on 30.09.2015, is nothing short of reprehensible. Such inordinate delay cannot be justified or excused under any circumstance, particularly when the said amount pertains to the rightful retiral dues of petitioner. Furthermore, the respondent has unjustifiably delayed the payment of leave encashment amounting to Rs. 3,41,588/- by approximately eleven months beyond the date of retirement. The petitioner is entitled not only to the principal amount but also to interest at the rate of 10% for such delay, which has not been duly provided by the respondent. More egregiously, the respondent has unlawfully and without any authority deducted Rs. 59,767/- from the gratuity of petitioner. This act of deduction post-retirement is completely unauthorized and constitutes a clear violation of the statutory and vested rights of petitioner. Once the petitioner has retired, the respondent has no legal or moral right to arbitrarily withhold or deduct any amount from the retirement benefits of petitioner. Such deductions amount to an infringement of the fundamental rights of petitioner and entitlement under the relevant service rules and statutory provisions governing retirement benefits. The actions of the respondent in this regard are not only arbitrary but also discriminatory. The petitioner had brought these concerns, including the delayed payments and illegal deduction, to the notice of the respondent through multiple representations. However, rather than addressing these grievances with due diligence and fairness, the respondent has chosen to ignore the legitimate claims of petitioner, thereby flagrantly disregarding the principles of natural justice. The conduct on the part of respondent 6 amounts to a denial of a fair hearing and violates the foundational principles enshrined under the Constitution of India, including the right to equality, protection of property, and fair treatment in public employment matters. It is further submitted that the repeated representations and requests made by petitioner for redressal have been met with silence or neglect. The respondent has failed to provide any substantive response or justification for the delay in payment or the illegal deduction. This omission underscores a callous disregard for the rights of petitioner and compounds the injustice already suffered. Such non-consideration of representations is arbitrary, mala fide, and contrary to the established norms of administrative propriety and fairness. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the respondent has acted in violation of the fundamental rights, service conditions, and statutory entitlements of petitioner. The petitioner is entitled not only to the recovery of the unlawfully deducted amount but also to interest at the prevailing rates on all delayed payments, including gratuity and leave encashment. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner is a retired employee of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam and has filed the present petition challenging the recovery of Rs. 59,767/- from his gratuity and claiming interest at the rate of 10% on the delayed payment of leave encashment amounting to Rs. 3,41,588/-. It is submitted that the grievances and claims of petitioner are directed exclusively against the respondents No. 1 to 3, namely the Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam and its officials. The Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam is an autonomous institution established under 7 relevant statutes and rules, and is not a department, agency, or instrumentality of the State Government of Chhattisgarh. The State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, has no direct control over or responsibility for the management, administration, or financial affairs of the Van Vikas Nigam, nor is it involved in the impugned recovery or payment transactions. Given the above, the State of Chhattisgarh is only a formal party to the proceedings, included by virtue of statutory or procedural requirements but not as a substantive party against whom any relief or claim has been asserted. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the assertions made by the petitioner regarding arbitrary delay, illegal deduction, and entitlement to interest are vehemently denied. The petitioner was employed as a Project Range Officer in the Industrial Plantation Division, Korba from 27.11.2011 until his retirement on 30.09.2015. During the tenure of petitioner, the respondent department undertook various plantation projects funded by external agencies such as NTPC Sipat. A contractual arrangement was in place between NTPC and the Van Vikas Nigam for plantation work in the Guru Ghasidas University Campus, Bilaspur. In the course of service, the petitioner was subject to an internal audit during the financial years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The audit revealed significant irregularities including excessive payments and non-adherence to the prescribed rules and guidelines of the Van Vikas Nigam. Notably, joint inspections by both NTPC and Van Vikas Nigam established that the survival rate of the plants handed over was below the contractual 8 requirement of 85%, with actual survival recorded at only 76%. This shortfall resulted in withholding of the final installment by NTPC Sipat to Van Vikas Nigam. In response to these findings, the Van Vikas Nigam issued guidelines on 26.11.2016, delineating the mechanism for recovery of excess expenditure incurred on forestry and plantation works. Pursuant to these guidelines and after issuing due show cause notices to the concerned employees, including the petitioner, a recovery order was passed by the competent authority for the total sum of Rs. 1,16,557/- to be recovered from the dues of petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said recovery order before the Regional General Manager (RGM), who upon reassessment and sympathetic consideration, modified the recoverable amount to Rs. 59,767/- vide order dated 09.10.2018. This sum is now rightly recoverable from the petitioner in accordance with the established guidelines and in line with the principle of recovery of excess expenditure. It is further submitted that the contention of petitioner seeking interest on leave encashment is misconceived and without any basis in law or contract. The relevant rules and service regulations governing retirement benefits do not provide for payment of interest on delayed leave encashment. Therefore, the claim of petitioner for such interest lacks merit and is liable to be rejected. The instant petition represents a continuation of prior litigation wherein this Court, in WP(S) No. 6847/2018, had directed compliance with respect to payment of gratuity along with interest. In accordance with the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by this Court, the respondent has already disbursed the interest amount on gratuity as mandated. Hence, any grievance relating to gratuity payment and interest thereon has been duly addressed. The 9 respondent further submits that the communications dated 01.04.2019 and 30.05.2019, along with other correspondence from the Divisional Manager, reflect only preliminary and personal opinions which were examined thoroughly by the office of the Regional General Manager. Upon examination, the recommendations were not accepted as the petitioner was found to have exceeded the sanctioned expenditure. Detailed analyses and observations have been communicated to the respondent authorities, as evidenced by letters dated 16.07.2019 and 18.10.2019. The allegations made by petitioner of discriminatory conduct and violation of principles of natural justice are baseless and unfounded. The recovery proceedings were initiated only after issuing adequate show cause notices and giving the petitioner ample opportunity to present his case. The action taken by the respondent is entirely lawful, reasonable, and consistent with the guidelines and contractual obligations governing the plantation projects. Furthermore, it is submitted that the recovery amount of Rs. 59,767/- is not unique to the petitioner alone. Similar recovery orders have been passed against 16 other employees occupying various posts, who have also complied with the recovery demands. The cumulative amount recovered from all such employees amounts to Rs. 7,85,021/-, thereby underscoring the uniform and non-discriminatory application of the recovery guidelines. In light of the above facts and submissions, the claims of petitioner for interest on leave encashment and the alleged illegal deduction stand repudiated. The recovery of Rs. 59,767/- from the gratuity of petitioner is lawful, justified, and in accordance with the established rules and audit findings. Consequently, the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed in its entirety. 10 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents appended along with the petition. 7. Upon careful examination, it is observed that the deduction of Rs. 59,767/- was based on audit findings relating to excess expenditure during the service tenure of petitioner. While recoveries of such sums are not unusual in public employment due to irregularities, the recovery in this case was made post-retirement without adequate procedural safeguards or meaningful opportunity for the petitioner to contest the deduction. Given that retiral benefits enjoy protection under service rules, the Court finds that the deduction of Rs. 59,767/- from the gratuity of petitioner was made arbitrarily and without due process, and is therefore unlawful and unjustified. Regarding the delayed payment of Rs. 56,790/- and the leave encashment amount of Rs. 3,41,588/-, the petitioner was entitled to timely disbursement. The delay, caused by administrative lapses on the part of the respondent, is unacceptable. Although the respondent argues that the rules do not provide for interest on delayed leave encashment, principles of equity and fairness dictate that the petitioner should be compensated for the period of delay through payment of interest. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U. P. and Others, reported in 2000 AIR SCW 2678 has held as under : “3. In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement. 11 4. In this case, there is absolutely no reason for justification for not making the payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from the date of her retirement, i.e., 31st August, 1997 till the date of payments.” 9. Considering the prevailing judicial standards and the facts of the case, the Court deems an interest rate of 9% per annum as fair and reasonable on all delayed payments, including the refunded amount of Rs. 59,767/-, the delayed payment of Rs. 56,790/-, and the delayed leave encashment sum of Rs. 3,41,588/-. 10. In view of the above, the Court allows the petition in part. The respondents are directed to refund the deducted amount of Rs. 59,767/- to the petitioner along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of retirement until actual payment. Similarly, the petitioner shall receive interest at 9% per annum on Rs. 56,790/- and Rs. 3,41,588/- for the respective periods of delay from the date of retirement till the date of payment. The respondents shall make the said payments within ninety (90) days from the date of this order and report compliance to the Court. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Shayna