1 2025:CGHC:59292 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9126 of 2023 1 - Shakuntala Agrawal, W/o R.J. Agrawal Aged About 77 Years R/o 2/5, Nehru Nagar West, Opposite Gurudwara, Bhilai, 490022, Durg (C.G.) 2 - Sanjay Agrawal S/o R.J. Agrawal Aged About 51 Years R/o 2/5, Nehru Nagar, West Opposite Gurudwara, Bhilai, 490022, Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Water Resource Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Engineer Godavari Kachhar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Pension Redressal Committee General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 4 - State Of M.P. Through Principal Secretary Water Resource Department, Ballabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition with the following reliefs :- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.08 18:06:57 +0530 2 10.2. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to award interest at the rate of 18% P.A. on the sum total of Retiral Dues which amounts to Rs.26.61,545/- from 11.2003 till the date of actual payment. 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that petitioner No. 1 is the wife, and petitioner No. 2 is the son of Shri R.J. Agrawal, who was posted as Executive Engineer in the Department of Water Resources since 1960. During his service, certain allegations regarding irregularities in expenditure on the muster roll arose at Tandula, Water Resources Division, Durg, in April 1994. Consequently, Shri R.J. Agrawal was suspended from his post on 07.10.1994. He was reinstated on 01.05.1995, with a note that regularization of the suspension period would be considered after the departmental inquiry was resolved. Shri R.J. Agrawal retired on 31.07.1995 upon attaining superannuation, while the departmental inquiry remained pending. As no disciplinary order was ever passed, the suspension period from 07.10.1994 to 01.05.1995 could not be regularized. 3. Subsequently, on 08.03.2019, the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Chhattisgarh, issued an order closing the pending departmental inquiry against the late Shri R.J. Agrawal on the ground that it could not be completed for over 23 years, and 3 directed that the suspension period be treated as ‘in service for all purposes, except salary. 4. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 submitted a representation before the Lok Ayog, Chhattisgarh, on 18.10.2022. When no action was taken, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 9114/2022, which was disposed of on 20.12.2022, directing the respondents to consider the representation within three months. As no action was taken within the stipulated period, the petitioners filed Contempt Case (C) No. 423/2023. During its pendency, the representation was disposed of vide order dated 09.06.2023 by the Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Chhattisgarh, and the arrears of retiral dues were addressed to petitioner No. 1 by Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 27.07.2023, without including interest. 5. Since the pension amount, which had been pending since 2003, was paid only in 2023, the petitioners are entitled to receive interest on the delayed retiral dues. The petitioners are thus aggrieved by the order dated 09.06.2023 and the letter dated 27.07.2023 issued by the GAD (Pension), withholding the full retiral benefits legally due to them. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have completely failed to calculate and release the interest payable on the delayed payment of pension and other retiral dues, despite the fact that the amount which became payable in the year 2003 was disbursed only in 2023, after an unexplained 4 delay of almost twenty years. It is urged that such delay has deprived the husband of petitioner No. 1 of the valuable right to receive his lawful retiral benefits during his lifetime. It is further contended that the right of a retired employee to receive pension and gratuity on the date of superannuation is a substantive and vested right, no longer considered a mere bounty at the discretion of the State. The delay in settlement of the dues was not attributable to the husband of the petitioner but arose solely due to the negligence and administrative lapses of the respondent– Department, which is evident from the communication dated 08.03.2019 wherein the departmental enquiry pending since 1994 was closed after 23 years on the ground that the records, including the charge-sheet, were misplaced. 7. Learned counsel further submits that despite several representations made by the husband of the petitioner No.1 before his death, no action was taken by the authorities, causing him and his family immense hardship and mental agony. It is urged that the husband of petitioner No. 1 was seriously ill and yet no timely steps were taken to release his retiral dues during his lifetime, and even after his death petitioner No. 1 continues to suffer due to the indifference of the respondents. 8. Learned counsel further places reliance on the settled position of law that pension and gratuity are welfare measures meant to ensure the sustenance of a retired employee and his dependants, 5 and that delay in their disbursement must necessarily entail payment of interest. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429; D.D. Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli, (2014) 8 SCC 894; and Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 9 SCC 687, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that pensionary benefits are not matters of charity and any delay in their release must be compensated by payment of interest at the prevailing rate from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner No.1 retired on 31.07.1995, the departmental enquiry ultimately concluded without any adverse finding, and his retiral dues were released belatedly in the year 2023. Therefore, the petitioners are legally entitled to interest for the inordinate delay in the release of the retiral dues, and the present petition has been filed seeking such relief. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the writ petition, as framed and filed, is wholly without substance and deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold. It is contended that although the service dues could not be released to the husband of the petitioner owing to the pendency of departmental enquiry, the said enquiry was subsequently closed without any adverse finding, and therefore no illegality can be attributed to the respondents. Learned State counsel submits that 6 all allegations levelled by the petitioners have been categorically denied, and the petitioners have failed to place on record the complete facts or any material to establish infringement of any legal or fundamental right warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further argued that the petitioners have approached this Court without clean hands, having suppressed material facts and misrepresented the record. The respondents submit that the grievance raised is wholly misplaced, as the delay in settlement of retiral dues was occasioned due to non-receipt of necessary demand reports, investigation papers, and incident certificates from the offices under the Government of Madhya Pradesh, even after reorganization of the State. 10. Learned State counsel further submits that, as reflected in the Government order dated 09.06.2023, one of the two departmental enquiries against the husband of petitioner No.1 had already culminated in the penalty of withholding 50% pension by order dated 13.06.2000 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the second enquiry was closed vide order dated 08.03.2019 on account of being a 23-year-old, time-barred matter. Thus, the assertion of the petitioners that no departmental action was pending or decided is patently incorrect. It is further submitted that the pension case could not be finalized earlier owing to the absence of mandatory documents from Madhya Pradesh, and that the authorities have acted strictly in accordance with law and 7 in compliance with the circular dated 03.03.2012 which mandates closure of departmental proceedings upon the death of a serving or retired government servant. According to the State, all actions of the respondents are legal, proper, and within jurisdiction, and no material irregularity or illegality has been pointed out by the petitioners. 11. Learned State counsel therefore submits that the writ petition is vague, misleading, devoid of merit and substance, and that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, interim or otherwise. It is thus prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also meticulously perused the material and documents brought on record with the writ petition. 13. Having considering the matter in its entirety, it transpires that the husband of the petitioner No.1 had superannuated as far back as in the year 1995. It further stands admitted that the retiral dues payable to him were withheld by the respondents solely on account of the pendency of a departmental enquiry. The record placed before this Court reveals that the said departmental enquiry was eventually closed, and only thereafter, vide order dated 12.05.2023, the respondents proceeded to release the service dues in favour of the petitioners. 8 14. Despite the closure of the enquiry and despite the long lapse of time since the date of retirement, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court owing to the continued failure of the authorities to pay the statutory and legitimate interest on the delayed release of such retiral benefits. The delay in releasing the dues is completely attributable to the respondents and not to the petitioner, and therefore the petitioners cannot be made to suffer the financial loss arising out of the belated action of the authorities. 15. It is a settled position of law that retiral benefits constitute a valuable right of an employee and are not to be treated as a matter of favour or charity. Once the employee becomes entitled to such benefits, the employer is under a legal obligation to ensure timely disbursement. Any inordinate delay, particularly one spanning several decades, as in the present case, necessarily attracts liability to pay interest, not merely as compensation, but as a natural and legal consequence of withholding money which lawfully belongs to the retired employee or his dependents. 16. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioners are fully justified in seeking interest on the delayed payment of service dues, and the respondent authorities cannot escape their liability on any technical or procedural ground. The explanation offered by the authorities does not satisfactorily justify the prolonged withholding of dues for nearly four decades. 9 17. Accordingly, and in the interest of justice, fairness and equity, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The concerned respondent authorities are directed to compute and release interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the delayed payment of the retiral/service dues, and to ensure that the entire amount payable to petitioners is disbursed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 18. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh