1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 29.10.2025 Order passed on : 21.11.2025 WPS No. 214 of 2023 1 - Dr. J. L. Bharadwaj S/o Late Shri Rungoo Ram Bharadwaj Aged About 74 Years Retired Professor, Department Of Economics, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University Raipur R/o House No. E-109, Devendra Nagar, Sector - 1, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner- Higher Education Director Of Higher Education Block - C-30, Second And Third Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University Through The Registrar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order 1. The present petition has been filed challenging the arbitrary and discriminatory inaction of the respondent Authorities in not reckoning the previous service rendered by petitioner in various Government Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Colleges under the Higher Education Department from 06.09.1974 to 02.05.1988 for computation of retiral benefits. The petitioner further seeks appropriate directions for re-fixation of pension and gratuity in accordance with the VIth and VIIth Pay Commission revisions and for payment of consequential arrears. The impugned inaction has resulted in substantial financial loss to the petitioner and is alleged to be unjust, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs by way of this writ petition :- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus by directing the respondent authorities to computing the initial Government Service of the Petitioner from 06-09-1974 to 02-05- 1988 (Total 13 Years 07 Months 26 Days) for pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus by directing the respondent authorities for fixation of full pension and gratuity of the petitioner as soon as possible by counting the entire service period of the petitioner rendered by him in Higher Education Department with effect from date of retirement of petitioner along with the interest and remaining gratuity amount of Rupees 6.50 Lakh may be paid with interest. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus by directing the respondent authorities for payment the remaining Gratuity and pension arrears amount for the period 01-01-2011 to 31-12-2015 according to VIth pay scale alongwith interest. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus by directing the respondent authorities for payment the remaining Gratuity and pension arrears amount for the period of 01-01-2016 to 31-03-2018 according to VIIth pay scale alongwith interest. 10.5 Any other relief/relief's which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the petition 3 may also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Arts with a Gold Medal from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur. He further obtained his Master’s Degree in Arts, again with a Gold Medal, from the same University in the year 1971 and was subsequently awarded the Ph.D. Degree in 1985 from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur. The petitioner commenced his career in public service on 06.09.1974 when he was appointed as a Lecturer in Government Girls P.G. College, Raipur, in the pay scale of Rs. 300–600. Thereafter, he was promoted and transferred to Government College, Korba, where he joined as Professor on 22.12.1986. Subsequently, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Reader. The petitioner applied for the said post, was duly selected, and accordingly, his services were transferred from the Higher Education Department of the State to the University on a lien of two years. On 03.05.1988, the petitioner joined the post of Reader in Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, and discharged his duties with utmost devotion and diligence. In recognition of his sincerity and academic excellence, he was entrusted with important administrative responsibilities such as Director, College Development Council, and Director, U.G.C. Academic Staff College. On 20.02.1992, the Registrar of the University (respondent No. 3) addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, requesting transfer of the earlier State Government service of petitioner for inclusion in the computation of pay fixation, pension, and 4 gratuity (Annexure P/1). The petitioner was placed under suspension on 24.05.2000 due to certain alleged irregularities, and a departmental enquiry was instituted against him. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the petitioner was found innocent and reinstated in service on 04.05.2001. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.01.2002, respondent No. 3 validated the suspension period from 24.05.2000 to 04.05.2001 as qualifying service and directed payment of salary for the said period (Annexure P/2). After rendering long and meritorious service, the petitioner superannuated from the post of Professor and Head of Department of Economics, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, on 31.12.2010. The same was notified vide order dated 06.11.2009 issued by the Registrar (Annexure P/3). Subsequently, the Directorate of Higher Education, vide letter dated 31.08.2013, assessed the qualifying service of petitioner as 22 years, 7 months, and 28 days and fixed his pension at Rs. 21,627/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2011 and gratuity at Rs. 9,63,495/-, of which only Rs. 3,50,000/- was released (Annexure P/4). While determining the total service of petitioner, the respondent authorities failed to take into account his earlier service rendered in Government Colleges under the Higher Education Department from 06.09.1974 to 02.05.1988, which if included, would make his total qualifying service more than 35 years. Despite repeated representations, the respondents did not redress his grievance nor released the balance gratuity amount due to him. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.03.2015, the office of respondent No. 2 cancelled the earlier Pension Payment Order (P.P.O.) and Gratuity Payment Order (G.P.O.) dated 31.08.2013 of petitioner, citing instructions from the Auditor General, Raipur, to refix the same under Rule 84 of the 5 Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (Annexure P/5). Subsequently, on 17.12.2015, the Upper Director (Finance), Directorate of Higher Education, instructed respondent No. 3 to deposit the gratuity and pension contribution of petitioner for the period from 06.09.1974 to 02.05.1988 so that the same could be counted towards his total qualifying service. However, the said contribution was never deposited by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Annexure P/6). For verification, the Principal, Government College, Korba, forwarded the service book of petitioner to the Divisional Joint Director, Bilaspur, for issuance of the contribution certificate. The Divisional Additional Director, Treasury and Pension Section, Bilaspur, vide letter dated 21.11.2017, informed that the system of leave salary and pension contribution had been abolished under Fundamental Rules 115 and 116 (Annexure P/7). Thereafter, vide letter dated 15.12.2021, the Upper Director (Finance), Directorate of Higher Education, instructed the Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Main Branch, Raipur, to release payment of pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2018, fixing his pension at Rs. 55,582/- per month under the VIIth Pay Commission, but without granting arrears from 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2018 (Annexure P/8). Subsequently, respondent No. 1, vide order dated 05.08.2022, directed that the contribution of pension and gratuity for the period 06.09.1974 to 02.05.1988 (13 years, 7 months, 26 days) be deposited in the University Pension Fund so that it may be added for computation of pensionary benefits (Annexure P/9). Pursuant thereto, on 07.09.2022, the Upper Director (Finance) issued a communication to respondent No. 3 for necessary compliance (Annexure P/10). respondent No. 3 thereafter forwarded the service book of petitioner to 6 the Principal, Government College, Korba, for calculating the contribution amount and interest thereon for the aforesaid period (Annexure P/11). The petitioner has also submitted several representations to the concerned authorities, including respondent Nos. 2 and 3, requesting inclusion of his entire qualifying service for fixation of pension and gratuity and for release of the withheld gratuity amount (Annexure P/12). However, his representations remain unheeded. The respondents have completely ignored the legitimate claim of petitioner, despite the fact that this Court, in an identical matter, Dr. Sahab Lal Shrivastava vs. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 661/2011, decided on 15.03.2018), has already held that the entire length of service, including that rendered in Government Colleges, must be counted for determining retiral benefits. The said judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.03.2022 in Writ Appeal No. 324/2020. The deliberate inaction and discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner by the respondent authorities are arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, having rendered more than three decades of distinguished service in the field of higher education, has been unjustly deprived of his rightful pensionary and gratuity benefits, thereby compelling him to approach this Court for appropriate relief. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in not granting full pensionary and retiral benefits by excluding the period of service rendered by the petitioner in various Government Colleges under the Higher Education Department 7 is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have failed to account for the legitimate service tenure of petitioner during his initial years of appointment, thereby depriving him of his lawful and earned pensionary entitlements without any just or reasonable cause. It is further submitted that the claim of the petitioner stands duly acknowledged and admitted by the respondent authorities themselves, as is evident from the official communications. Despite such admission, the respondents have failed to act upon the same and to extend consequential benefits to the petitioner. This inaction, despite acknowledgment of entitlement, demonstrates clear administrative apathy and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. The learned counsel for petitioner further submits that several other similarly situated Professors and Readers of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, who had also rendered services in Government Colleges under the Higher Education Department prior to their absorption in the University, have been granted the benefit of counting their past Government service towards pension and gratuity. However, the case of petitioner has been singled out and treated differently without any justifiable distinction, amounting to hostile discrimination and violation of the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have consistently held that the past services rendered by an employee in the same or equivalent department cannot be excluded for the purpose of computation of qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Denial of such benefit amounts to arbitrary deprivation of accrued service rights. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 8 Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 430, squarely applies to the facts of the present case, wherein it has been held that previous government service rendered by an employee in the same department must be reckoned for calculating total qualifying service for determining pension and gratuity. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite repeated representations and reminders, the respondents have caused undue and unreasonable delay in processing the claim of petitioner for fixation of full pension. The prolonged inaction for over twelve (12) years, despite the consistent follow-up of petitioner, has resulted in gross injustice and serious financial hardship to him. Such inordinate delay is wholly unwarranted and contrary to the settled principle that pension is not a bounty but a vested right of the employee. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 2, in particular, has failed to act upon the grievances of petitioner despite receipt of representations and documentary evidence substantiating his entitlement. No reasoned order has been passed, nor has any legal justification been provided for denying the claim of petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and fair play. It is also submitted that withholding of his gratuity and pension amounts for an unduly long period, without any plausible justification, is grossly illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory. Such withholding of terminal benefits, despite long and unblemished service, amounts to deprivation of property in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Lastly, it is submitted that the respondents, by their arbitrary and dilatory conduct, have placed the petitioner in a perpetual state of 9 uncertainty and distress, compelling him to seek recourse from this Court. The repeated non-compliance with their own communications and the judgments of superior courts clearly indicate mala fide administrative indifference, warranting appropriate directions from this Court for fixation and release of the lawful pensionary dues of petitioner along with consequential benefits and interest. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State strenuously opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and contends that the the principal relief sought by the petitioner pertains to a direction for counting his earlier period of service from 06.09.1974 to 02.05.1988, rendered in various Government Colleges under the Higher Education Department, for the purpose of computation of pensionary and other consequential benefits. The said relief has already been considered and duly extended to the petitioner by the respondent authorities. It is submitted that, in compliance with the long-pending claim of petitioner, the State Government, vide order dated 05.08.2022 (Annexure R/1), has accorded formal permission for counting and computing the previous Government service of petitioner rendered between 06.09.1974 and 02.05.1988, totaling 13 years, 7 months, and 26 days, for the purpose of fixation and grant of pensionary benefits. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the aforesaid Government order dated 05.08.2022 (Annexure R/1), the pension case of the petitioner has been duly revised by the competent authority. The pension of petitioner has now been fixed at Rs. 31,720/- per month with effect from 01.01.2011 under the 6th Pay Commission, and subsequently revised to Rs. 81,520/- per month with effect from 01.04.2018 under the 7th Pay Commission. The 10 arrears of pension have also been duly calculated, Rs. 31,700/- for the period from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2015 under the 6th Pay Commission, and Rs. 19,032/- under the 7th Pay Commission for the period commencing from 01.04.2018. Vide communication dated 04.06.2024 (Annexure R/2), the Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Raipur, has been requested to release and disburse the revised pension and arrears to the petitioner accordingly. It is also submitted that the gratuity amount of the petitioner has been reviewed and revised in accordance with the applicable rules. A sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been sanctioned as the final gratuity entitlement of petitioner, subject to adjustment of the amount already disbursed under the same head. Necessary communication to this effect has been issued to the Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Raipur, vide letter dated 04.06.2024 (Annexure R/3), with instructions to release the revised gratuity amount in favour of the petitioner. In light of the above developments, it is submitted that the primary relief sought by the petitioner, i.e., inclusion of his earlier Government service for pensionary computation and payment of revised pension and gratuity, has already been granted by the respondent authorities. Therefore, nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the present matter. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 would submit that respondent No. 3, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, is an autonomous body established under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (formerly the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973). The administrative and financial affairs of the University are governed by the said Act and the Statutes framed thereunder. The University is wholly dependent upon the grant- 11 in-aid released by the State Government from time to time for meeting its financial obligations, including salaries, pensions, and other service- related payments to its employees. Accordingly, any order relating to pay revision or enhancement of pensionary benefits becomes applicable to the University employees only after the State Government extends such benefits to the Universities through specific sanction and release of corresponding financial grants. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as Reader in Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, and superannuated from service on 31.12.2010 while holding the post of Professor and Head of the Department. During the period of his service under the University, the petitioner was paid his salary and all admissible benefits strictly in accordance with law and as per the directions and grants sanctioned by the State Government from time to time. It is submitted that respondent No. 3, the University, is not the competent authority to decide or finalize such pensionary claims. The pension and gratuity of University employees are governed under Statute No. 32, framed under the provisions of the University Act. As per Statute No. 32, the management and control of the Pension and Gratuity Fund of the University employees vest in the Commissioner, Higher Education Department (respondent No. 2). 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents annexed along with the petition with atmost circumspection. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that while determining his pension and gratuity upon superannuation, the respondent authorities failed to include his earlier service rendered under the Higher Education 12 Department of the State from 06.09.1974 to 02.05.1988. Such exclusion, according to the petitioner, resulted in substantial reduction in his qualifying service and consequently, in diminution of his retiral entitlements. Despite repeated representations and official communications, his legitimate claim for inclusion of past service remained unredressed for an inordinately long period. 9. Factual position relating to the previous Government service of petitioner, its duration, and its omission from the computation of pensionary benefits is not in dispute. It is also an admitted position that the service of petitioner from 06.09.1974 to 02.05.1988 was rendered in Government Colleges under the Higher Education Department, which subsequently transferred him to Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University on lien when he was appointed as Reader. 10. The Court notes with disapproval the inordinate delay of more than a decade in acknowledging and rectifying the legitimate claim of petitioner. Despite clear departmental correspondence dating back to 1992, wherein the University itself requested the Higher Education Department to transfer and count the previous service of petitioner for pension and gratuity purposes, the matter remained unresolved till issuance of the Government order dated 05.08.2022. The delay, though ultimately rectified, is symptomatic of bureaucratic indifference and inefficiency that has caused unwarranted hardship to a retired academician. 11. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, this Court is constrained to observe that the prolonged inaction of the respondent authorities in extending to the petitioner the benefit of 13 counting his past Government service for pensionary computation is wholly unjustified and arbitrary. It is not in dispute that the petitioner served the State Government in various Government Colleges under the Higher Education Department from 06.09.1974 to 02.05.1988, and that his subsequent appointment as Reader in Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University was made while he was holding a lien with the parent department. Once the lien was duly maintained and no disciplinary or adverse proceedings were pending against him during that period, the earlier service necessarily forms part of continuous qualifying service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where the service is continuous and rendered under the same employer, whether the State or its instrumentalities, the same cannot be fragmented or excluded for computation of pension. 12. The record further demonstrates that the claim of petitioner for counting the earlier service was acknowledged repeatedly by the authorities themselves. The University wrote to the Higher Education Department in 1992 seeking transfer of the petitioner’s Government service for computing pension and pay fixation. Subsequent communications, including those dated 24.01.2002, 31.08.2013, 17.12.2015, and 07.09.2022, also corroborate the fact that the entitlement of petitioner to have his earlier Government service counted was never disputed on merits. 13. The repeated acknowledgments by the respondents, coupled with their failure to act for nearly three decades, is emblematic of administrative apathy that this Court cannot condone. The petitioner further contends that similarly situated employees, Professors and Readers of the same 14 University, have been granted the benefit of counting their past Government service, whereas his case alone was subjected to unjust and unexplained exclusion. This Court finds merit in the submission. Once the respondents themselves have implemented the decision of this Court in Dr. Sahab Lal Shrivastava v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 661/2011, decided on 15.03.2018), as affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 324/2020, wherein it was held that the entire service rendered in Government Colleges must be counted for retiral benefits, the respondents were bound, in law and equity, to follow the same principle for the petitioner. 14. This Court in the matter of Dr. Sahab Lal Shrivastava (Supra) passed in WPS No. 661/2011, vide order dated 15.03.2018 has held thus : “6. Pursuant to the order of the Ravishankar Shukla University, the petitioner has deposited the entire amount of Rs.2,60,475/- under the provident fund scheme received from the two universities where the petitioner had discharged his duties before joining at Raipur. That since 2009, the amount is lying with the respondents university at Raipur. The very fact that the Raipur University has already accepted the provident fund due of the petitioner that he had received from the two earlier universities where he had worked. This too establishes that the university as such has accepted the past service of the petitioner rendered at Rajasthan and Sambalpur and have also principally accepted treating that period as qualifying service for counting total length of service. If we take into consideration the order issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh Higher Education Department dated 19/08/2008 and view it from the angle that the university also had 15 directed the petitioner to deposit the benefits of provident fund that he had received from his two previous employer and which the petitioner had complied with, the obvious inference which could be drawn is that the respondents have principally accepted the services rendered by the petitioner with the previous two employers treating it as qualifying service for counting the total length of service. What also cannot be brushed aside is the fact that there is no break in service between the change of employer so far as the petitioner's case is concerned. Moreover, each time there was a shift in employment the petitioner had taken due permission/sanction of the superior authorities seeking permission for participating in the recruitment process first at Sambalpur on a higher post and thereafter again at Raipur for a still higher post and all of which were accepted by the State Government. That with the permission of the previous employer, the petitioner had joined the subsequent services on being found suitable for the post and now that the State Government as well as university having principally accepted the request of the petitioner for counting the past service for the purpose of calculating the length of service. Under the circumstances this Court has no hesitation in allowing the petition holding that the petitioner is entitled for the retiral due counting his services rendered both at the Rajasthan University and thereafter at Sambalpur also.” 15. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case also, it is evident that the earlier service of petitioner from 06.09.1974 to 02.05.1988 formed an integral part of his continuous tenure in the Higher Education Department, later continued under the aegis of the State University. The respondents were, therefore, under a legal and moral 16 obligation to reckon the said period for computing the qualifying service of petitioner. The exclusion of this service period for over twelve years after his retirement was arbitrary, discriminatory, and wholly unjustified. The State Government, by issuing the order dated 05.08.2022, has finally accepted the legitimacy of the claim of petitioner. The consequential revision of pension and gratuity has been carried out, and directions have been issued to release the arrears. However, considering the protracted delay and the financial distress suffered by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that mere post- facto compliance cannot absolve the authorities of their responsibility. 16. It is trite law that administrative lethargy cannot override the constitutional guarantee of equality and fairness in public employment. Pension is not a charity or ex gratia payment but a right earned by an employee for his long and faithful service. The prolonged withholding of pensionary benefits in the present case amounts to an unjust deprivation of property under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner was and continues to be entitled to have his entire Government service from 06.09.1974 to 02.05.1988 counted for the purpose of computation of pension and other consequential retiral benefits. The State Government has rightly corrected the anomaly through its order dated 05.08.2022. The subsequent revision of pension and gratuity must, therefore, be implemented in its entirety without any further delay. 17. Insofar as the claim of petitioner for payment of arrears and interest is concerned, this Court finds merit in his submission. The lawful dues of petitioner were withheld for an inordinate period of nearly twelve years 17 without justifiable cause. The respondents are, therefore, liable to compensate the petitioner for such delay. 18. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to ensure that the pension and gratuity of petitioner are finally fixed and released in accordance with the Government order dated 05.08.2022, counting his previous Government service from 06.09.1974 to 02.05.1988 (13 years, 7 months, and 26 days) towards qualifying service. The respondents shall release all consequential arrears of pension and gratuity, if not already released, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The arrears so payable shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accrual of entitlement till the date of actual payment. The respondent authorities are further directed to ensure that similar cases, if pending, are also examined and decided expeditiously in accordance with law and the directions contained herein. 19. The writ petition, having been substantially satisfied by the actions already taken by the respondents, stands disposed of in the above terms. However, in case of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to revive this petition. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 29.10.2025 21.11.2025 21.11.2025 21.11.2025