1 2025:CGHC:2350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6580 of 2024 1 - Melan Singh Chouhan S/o Late Shri Keju Singh Chouhan Aged About 63 Years Occupation - Ex. Govt. Employee, Retd. Driver, Water Resources Department Bemetara R/o Kachaharipara Bemetara, Tahsil And District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Water Resources Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Division Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer Water Resources Sub Division No. 2, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Principal Accountant General (Audit) Zero Point, Baloda Bazar Road, Post - Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 2 For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Pratik Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.3. 10.2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by commanding and directing the respondents to release the amount of Gratuity forthwith with appropriate rate of interest. 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without any plausible reason the service benefit of the petitioner has been withheld by the respondent authorities and vide letter dated 22.08.2024, it has been stated that since the daughter of the petitioner has encroached upon a government land of Water Resource Department and has constructed a pakka house in the aforesaid encroached area, therefore the petitioner was directed to give documents in the shape of evidence, so that his entire service benefit may be given to him, however till date neither 3 document has been filed nor the document required has been filed, as such the amount of gratuity will be paid only after filing of the relevant document. 4. It has been argued by the petitioner that no where it has been mentioned that the petitioner has ever encroached any land or he is involved in the encroachment of the said land. 5. The reasons assigned by the respondent authorities Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Bemetara would not be a ground to withheld the amount of gratuity. This exercise which has been done by the respondent Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Bemetara is none else but a colourable exercise of power, as such, the relief as sought by the petitioner may be granted. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted by filing their return that infact the petitioner has encroached upon the said government land and as such, the gratuity amount could not be given to him. 7. Be that as may be, even after considering the aforesaid argument advanced by the learned State counsel I am unable to understand that how this could be the reason for denying gratuity of the petitioner. If the petitioner or the daughter of the petitioner has encroached any government land, the proper course would be to file appropriate application/petition before the concerned Court as well as the officer to restrain them or to get the premises evicted 4 from the hands of the petitioner or his daughter while taking recourse of law but in any case, the amount of gratuity cannot be withheld only for the reason that as per notice the daughter of the petitioner has encroached upon a government land and according to reply it is the petitioner who has encroached upon the said government land. When the question was posed to the counsel for the State, he is unable to show any circular or judgment in this respect that if the family member or the retired employee would found to be in illegal possession of any government land, the gratuity amount can be withheld. 8. Considering overall aspects of the matter, withholding of gratuity amount seems to be an illegal and arbitrary act, as such, the impugned order Annexure P/1 is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to pay the gratuity amount along with an interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner. The said exercise be done within a period of 60 days. 9. With this direction the petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi