1 2026:CGHC:5645-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 101 of 2026 Naveen Kumar Patel S/o Late Budha Bhai Patel Aged About 64 Years Resident Of Od 50, Cseb, Colony Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through Its Managing Director Office At Vidyut Bhawan Danganiya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Engineer (Hr) Danganiya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer (Generation) Htps, Cspgcl Korba West, District- Korba Chhattisgarh, 4 - Dy General Manager (F And A) Ii Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Htps. Cspgcl, Korba West District- Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer (Civil) S Ii Dspm, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd. Korba East Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:58:37 +0530 2 For appellant (s) : Mr. Syed Mohammad Sohail Afzal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Syed Mohammad Sohail Afzal, Advocate, appearing for the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel for the Respondents in the present writ appeal. 2. Also heard on I.A. No. 01/2026 which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the I.A. No. 01/2026 is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the order dated 07.11.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the WPS No. 12511/2025 with the following prayer:- “ 1. Allow the present Writ Appeal and modify/set aside the order dated 07.11.2025 to the extent it fails to adjudicate the appellant's claim for interest; 2. Hold and declare that the appellant is entitled to interest on delayed payment of all gratuity 3 amounts, including Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs. 2,23,000/-; 3. Direct the respondents to pay interest @10% per annum on: Rs. 20,00,000/- from 01.02.2024 till 14.11.2025, and Rs. 2,23,000/- from 01.02.2024 till 11.12.2025; 4. Grant any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case..” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, a former employee of Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, superannuated on 31.01.2024, whereupon his Death- cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) of Rs. 20,00,000/- was sanctioned but illegally withheld by the respondents on the pretext of alleged recovery relating to occupation of an official quarter, despite the appellant having vacated the same and penal rent being charged only for a delay of two months. Notwithstanding this, the respondents withheld the gratuity for nearly two years without paying any interest and, during pendency of the writ petition, released the said amount after deductions on 14.11.2025. Thereafter, the appellant discovered that an additional gratuity amount of Rs. 2,23,000/- had also been sanctioned by a separate undisclosed order and was credited to his account only on 11.12.2025, again without interest. The writ petition was disposed of on 07.11.2025 based on the respondents’ statement of release of dues, without adjudicating the appellant’s independent and surviving claim for interest on delayed payment of gratuity, 4 causing serious financial hardship to the appellant. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the petitioner/ writ appellant with the aforesaid prayer. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that interest on delayed payment of gratuity is a statutory and enforceable right, and withholding gratuity beyond the permissible period without payment of interest is illegal and unsustainable in law. The delay in payment was wholly attributable to the respondents, as no disciplinary or judicial proceedings were pending against the appellant at the time of his superannuation. Despite this, the respondents not only withheld the appellant’s gratuity for nearly two years but also denied him interest thereon, while simultaneously charging penal rent for an alleged delay of merely two months in vacating the official quarter. He would further submit that once the principle of penalty has been applied against the employee, fairness and equality demand that the same principle be applied against the employer for wrongful withholding of retiral dues. The non-supply of the separate gratuity order of ₹2,23,000/- and its delayed credit without interest further reflects arbitrary and opaque conduct on the part of the respondents. Lastly, the learned Single Judge failed to adjudicate the appellant’s specific and independent claim for interest on delayed payment of gratuity, resulting in grave prejudice and failure of justice, thereby warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 5 Hence this appeal should be allowed and the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 may be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the gratuity of the appellant was withheld bona fide and in accordance with applicable service rules due to pending verification and recovery of dues arising from delayed vacation of the official quarter, and therefore the delay cannot be termed illegal or arbitrary so as to attract liability of interest. The charging of penal rent was strictly as per rules and cannot be equated with payment of interest on gratuity, as both operate in distinct spheres. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity is not automatic and is payable only where the delay is unjustified or deliberate, which is not the case here, as the delay occurred due to administrative scrutiny and reconciliation of dues attributable to the appellant. Once the recoverable amount was recalculated, the respondents promptly released the admissible gratuity, showing absence of mala fides. The learned Single Judge correctly disposed of the writ petition upon compliance by the respondents, and the subsequent payment of the additional amount of ₹2,23,000/- was made as per policy without causing any prejudice to the appellant; hence, no further relief, including interest, is warranted and the appeal deserves dismissal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6 8. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents on record, the learned Single Judge has observed that:- 2…….the grievance raised by the petitioner has already been redressed, as in pursuance of direction passed by this Court, the respondents have recalculated the panel rate and not it has reducted to the tune of Rs. 17,103/- in place of Rs. 42,729/- and the remaining amount will be deposited within 07 days, therefore, nothing is required to be adjudicated by this Court at this juncture. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing the writ petition, we are of the considered view that the charging of penal rent was strictly as per rules and cannot be equated with payment of interest on gratuity, as both operate in distinct spheres. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity is not automatic and is payable only where the delay is unjustified or deliberate, which is not the case here, as the delay occurred due to administrative scrutiny and reconciliation of dues attributable to the appellant. Once the recoverable amount was recalculated, the respondents promptly released the admissible gratuity, showing absence of mala fides. The learned Single Judge correctly disposed of the writ petition upon compliance by the respondents, and the subsequent payment of the additional amount of ₹2,23,000/- was made as per policy without causing any prejudice to the appellant; hence, no 7 further relief, including interest, is warranted and the appeal deserves dismissal. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost (S) Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika