1 CGHC010422642024 2026:CGHC:29088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7924 of 2024 I.S. Kawreti S/o Late S.S. Kawreti Aged About 75 Years At Present R/o Shrivam - 08, Sundaram Nagar, Chhindwara, Tahsil And District Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipu, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Instructions Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of School Education Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Alok Bakshi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 10.07.2026 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.07.13 17:53:59 +0530 2 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- 10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may, kindly, be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner interest @ 18% per annum on account of delayed payment of the amount of Rs. 16,02,185/- from 01.12.2011 to 31.05.2023. 10.2. That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was promoted to the post of Additional Director on 11.01.2005 and continued to discharge his duties on the said post, was illegally reverted to the post of Joint Director by order dated 27.08.2011, which was challenged before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5406 of 2011. Pursuant to an interim order of status quo passed by this Court on 14.09.2011, the petitioner continued to work as Additional Director till his superannuation on 30.11.2011. However, despite having retired from the post of Additional Director, his retiral dues were computed and paid by treating him as having retired as Joint Director. It is submitted that although the writ petition was subsequently allowed and the order of reversion was 3 quashed, the respondents failed to release the consequential differential retiral dues, compelling the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings, whereafter the differential amount was paid. Learned counsel submits that despite the admitted delay in payment of the retiral benefits, the respondents have failed to pay any interest thereon, even after repeated representations made by the petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner has been unlawfully deprived of the timely payment of his legitimate retiral dues and is entitled to interest on the delayed payment. Accordingly, a direction is sought to the respondents to pay interest on the delayed release of the differential retiral dues. 3. He also submits that the issue of the payment of the retiral dues to the government servant immediately after retirement pending for consideration in case of Shyam Dev vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPS No.5256/2016 wherein the Court has issued the guidelines and also has awarded the interest @18% for the delay payment of the retiral dues. He also contended that Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Kukreja vs. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, WA No.259/2025, considering the decision upon which Hon'ble 4 Supreme Court in M. R. Gupta vs. Union of India and others reported in 1995 SCC (5) 628 and Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of UP and others repored in 2000 AIR SCW 2678 had awarded 18% simple interest to the petitioner therein on delay payment of retiral dues. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has sought interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of differential retiral dues amounting to Rs. 16,02,185/-. It is contended that although the petitioner's earlier writ petition resulted in restoration of his promotion and the differential retiral benefits were subsequently paid, there is no provision under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 for payment of interest on pension or retiral dues. The respondents further submit that, pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in Contempt Petition No. 701/2022, the petitioner's representation was considered and rejected by a reasoned order dated 22.04.2025. According to the respondents, the order in the contempt proceedings merely permitted the petitioner to claim interest in accordance with law and did not confer any entitlement. Since the petitioner has failed to establish any statutory or legal right to claim 5 interest, the writ petition is stated to be devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The payment of all the retiral dues to the petitioner is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner, he however submits that as the payment has been made with a delay the petitioner is entitled for the interest. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vijay L. Mehrotra (supra) has clearly held that all the payments of retiral dues should be paid on the date of retirement or immediately thereafter. On finding of disbursement with delay in making payment awarded simple interest of 18% per annum with effect from the date of retirement till the date of receiving payment. Further Division Bench of this Court in case of Ravindra Kumar Kukreja (supra) taking note of the decision in the case of M.R. Gupta (supra) as also Vijay L. Mehrotra (supra) has awarded interest of 18% simple interest from the date of payment of withhold retiral dues. 7. Award of interest in delayed payment of retiral dues is settled. Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of like nature had awarded 6 interest of different rates. To award interest facts and circumstances of the case and the period of delay would be the relevant consideration. Award of interest by Government on deposits of employee under different heads like GPF, Gratuity etc. during that period will also be one of the relevant consideration. 8. Taking note of the fact of the period on which payment was to made to petitioner, prevailing rate of interest, I find it appropriate to award simple interest @ 9% from the date it become due till its realization. The respondent authorities are directed to complete the exercise of computation of interest within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the order and to make payment within a further period of 2 weeks thereafter. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost(s). Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Shoaib