1 2025:CGHC:39566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9278 of 2023 Sandhya Tiwari W/o Vinod Tiwari Aged About 63 Years Retired Librarian, R/o L-14, Krishna Nagar, Near Bamleshwari Mandir, Danganiya, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Ayurved Yod, Unani Siddh Homeopathy, Ayush, Block No. 1, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Accountant General (Lekha Avam Hakdari) Zero Point Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Raipur Division Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Principal Govt. Ayurved College, G.E. Road, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.07 18:41:16 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 07.08.2025 1 The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay remaining GPF amount of Rs. 14,11,138/-within a week. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to pay 10% interest. 10.4 Any other relief/ relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, after having rendered more than 40 years of unblemished service as a Librarian from 26.05.1982 till her superannuation on 31.05.2022, is legally entitled to full retiral benefits including her 3 General Provident Fund (GPF) and pension, as is also reflected in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) issued on 24.08.2023. However, despite disposal of her earlier writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 5004/2023 vide order dated 25.08.2023, wherein the State had assured that the pension and gratuity would be released within 15 days, only partial GPF amount of Rs. 17,11,464/- has been paid to the petitioner, whereas she is entitled to Rs. 31,22,603/- as per the account statement issued by the Accountant General, leaving a balance of Rs. 14,11,138/- unpaid. It is submitted that repeated representations including that dated 16.10.2023 have gone unanswered and despite a communication dated 28.08.2023 from respondent No.5 recommending full payment, no action has been taken. According to the petitioner, there was delay of one year and one month in paying the balance amount and he seeks interest on that part only. He also places reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Hari Prakash Beohar v. State of Chhattisgarh in Writ Appeal No.762 of 2024 decided on 19.11.2024 and also in case of Ravindra Kumar Kukreja v. State of Chhattisgarh and others in Writ Appeal No.259 of 2025 decided on 25.04.2025. 3 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, upon due verification, submits that although there has been a delay of approximately one year and one month in the disbursement of the petitioner’s retiral dues, the same has occurred due to procedural 4 and official requirements involved in the processing of such payments, and such delay cannot be attributed to the State in any malafide or deliberate manner. 4 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with this writ petition. 5 This Court is of the firm view that retiral benefits are not a bounty, but a vested right of an employee earned over years of faithful service. Delay in the disbursement of such benefits not only causes financial hardship to the retired employee but also violates the spirit of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6 Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it clearly emerges that although the petitioner has been paid the entire amount of GPF, but the interest for the delay of one year and one month has not been paid to her. 7 In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is fully entitled to interest for the delayed period in disbursement of the GPF amount. A similar view has been consistently taken by this Court in Hari Prakash Beohar v. State of Chhattisgarh (Writ Appeal No.762/2024, decided on 19.11.2024) and Ravindra Kumar Kukreja v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Appeal No.259/2025, decided on 25.04.2025), wherein interest was awarded for delay in the release of retiral dues. 5 8 Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest on the said delayed amount at the rate of 10% per annum, to be calculated from the due date, till the actual date of payment. 9 The respondents are also directed to ensure that in future, such delays in disbursement of retiral dues are avoided and appropriate accountability is fixed upon erring officials, if any. No order as to costs. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh