1 CGHC010273822026 2026:CGHC:31701 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5599 of 2026 C.K. Sahu S/o Lalit Kumar Sahu Aged About 65 Years Retired For, The Post Assistant Engineer, In The Office Of Executive Engineer, Raigarh, Division, District Raigarh, C.G. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of P.W.D. Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Engineer In Chief Department Of P.W.D. North Block Sector 19, Nirman Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department Raipur District Raipur C.G. 4 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department Raigarh Division District Raigarh, C.G. 5 - Accountant General Accounts And Entitlement Chhattisgarh, Baloda, Bazar Road P.O. Vidhansabha Raipur District Raipur C.G. 6 - Assistant Accountant General Account And Entitlement Chhattisgarh, Baloda, Bazar Road P.O. Vidhansabha, Raipur District Raipur C.G. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For Resp/State : Ms. Apurva Nigam, PL For Resp. No.5 & 6 : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.25 12:21:06 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 24/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition calling in question the authorization letter dated 07.01.2026, whereby the Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlement), Chhattisgarh has authorized release of the petitioner's General Provident Fund and other retiral dues along with interest calculated only upto January, 2024, with a stipulation that no further interest would be payable. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to calculate and pay interest upto the actual date of disbursement, i.e., January, 2026, along with further interest. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2023, his retiral dues were actually released only in January, 2026. It is contended that the respondents have illegally restricted the payment of interest only upto January, 2024, whereas interest ought to have been paid till the date of actual disbursement of the amount. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the authorization issued by the Accountant General is strictly in accordance with the Finance Department Circular dated 26.12.2015 and the clarification dated 01.02.2016, which specifically provide that in cases of retirement, interest on the General Provident Fund is payable only upto the prescribed period and not till the actual date of payment. It is submitted that the petitioner has already been paid interest strictly in accordance with the aforesaid instructions and, therefore, no further amount is 3 legally payable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The controversy involved in the present case lies in a narrow compass. The sole question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim interest on the General Provident Fund beyond the period prescribed under the applicable Government instructions merely because the actual disbursement of the amount was made subsequently. 6. A perusal of the Finance Department Circular dated 26.12.2015 would reveal that the State Government, while amending the provisions governing payment of interest on General Provident Fund, has specifically provided that in cases of retirement, death or resignation, interest shall be admissible only upto the prescribed period, namely a maximum period of six months from the date on which the amount becomes payable. The subsequent clarification dated 01.02.2016 reiterates the said position and directs that the amended provisions shall govern such cases. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2023. The authorization dated 07.01.2026 indicates that interest has been calculated upto January, 2024, which is in conformity with the aforesaid Finance Department instructions. Thus, the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the governing policy and the applicable rules while determining the amount payable to the petitioner. 8. The submission of the petitioner that interest should necessarily be paid 4 till the date of actual disbursement cannot be accepted. Such a contention overlooks the specific statutory and administrative framework regulating payment of interest on the General Provident Fund. Once the applicable instructions prescribe the outer limit upto which interest is payable, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct payment of interest contrary to the said provisions. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned authorization dated 07.01.2026. The petitioner has failed to establish any legal or statutory right entitling him to payment of interest beyond what has already been sanctioned under the applicable Government instructions. 10. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE 𝓡𝓪𝓱𝓾𝓵