1 2025:CGHC:55702 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8255 of 2023 Dr. Pawan Kumar Kurre S/o Shri T.C. Kurre Aged About 43 Years Working As Assistant Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Hospital, Simga, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Veterinary Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Veterinary Services, Indravati Bhawan, Block-3 Ground Floor, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Deputy Director Veterinary Services, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - S.P. Singh (Sudhir Pratap Singh) S/o Shri B.P. Singh Working As Deputy Director, Veterinary Service, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 14.11.2025 1 The present petition has been filed with the following relief(s) :- YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.18 13:34:45 +0530 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ order, thereby directing the respondent authorities to release the medical reimbursement, travelling allowance, benefits of annual increment payable from July, 2023 in favour of petitioner forthwith. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 12% per annum over unpaid salary from the date of entitlement to its actual payment. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Veterinary Surgeon under respondent No. 1 and had been discharging his duties sincerely. The petitioner belonged to the Scheduled Caste category. After respondent No. 4 assumed charge at Balodabazar, he allegedly started harassing the petitioner on caste grounds, used abusive and derogatory language, threatened him with coercive action, and withheld his service-related benefits. Respondent No. 4 stopped payment of the petitioner’s salary from March 2023 without any justification and also deprived him of travelling allowance, medical reimbursement, and the annual increment that became due from July 2023. 3 3 It was stated that during this period, the petitioner’s father had fallen seriously ill and required hospitalization, due to which the petitioner was compelled to borrow money on account of stoppage of salary. The petitioner made several representations seeking release of his dues. Considering these representations, respondent No. 2 had issued orders dated 05.07.2023 and 16.08.2023 directing release of unpaid salary, and respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 23.08.2023, had approved the petitioner’s salary for the period from March 2023 to July 2023. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire dues pertaining to the petitioner, including his unpaid salary, travelling allowance, medical reimbursement and annual increment, have already been disbursed by the respondents, though after considerable delay. It is contended that the delay in release of these statutory and service-related benefits caused serious financial hardship to the petitioner, compelling him to borrow money for essential needs, including the medical treatment of his ailing father. He further submits that the delay was entirely due to the unjustified and arbitrary conduct of respondent No. 4, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payments. This, it is contended, is necessary not only to compensate the petitioner for the financial hardship he was compelled to endure but also to uphold the principle that an 4 employee should not suffer adverse consequences for no fault attributable to him. 5 Learned State counsel opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7 Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view that the petitioner’s legitimate dues were released only after substantial delay, the respondents-State are directed to release interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all delayed payments made to the petitioner, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Compliance shall be ensured within the stipulated period. 8 With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh