1 CGHC010276982022 2026:CGHC:31976 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5628 of 2022 Gyaneshwar Gosai S/o Late Shri Jageshwar Gosai Aged About 65 Years R/o Bharka Para, Ward No. 26, Rajnandgaon , District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Nava Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Food And Civil Supply And Consumer Protection, Block 2, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Balrampur Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 4 - Food Officer District Balrampur Ramanujganj. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:– Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 “10. i. To kindly issue directions to the respondent authorities to pay full Revised Pension and 50% Gratuity, Leave Encashment, GPF amount and other retiral dues forthwith along with the interest of 18%. ii. To kindly issue appropriate direction to the effect that the respondent shall take a decision to treat the suspension period of the petitioner as duty period and grant him all arrears of salary during suspension period. iii. To kindly make any other order/s that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Aniket Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was working on the post of Food Inspector under the respondents, was placed under suspension vide order dated 05.10.2011 and, at the same time, a criminal case was also lodged against him. He would contend that in the criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kondagaon, vide judgment dated 24.08.2018. Prior to that, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 31.12.2016. He would contend that the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation, retired from services on 31.10.2018, but till date his retiral dues have not been finalized. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P. No. 293 of 2005 (Sirottam Prasad Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh and ors), wherein it has been held that the retiral benefits of an employee cannot be withheld on account of pendency of a criminal appeal. He would pray for a direction to the respondent authorities to finalize his pension case and for regularization of the entire suspension period. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Amandeep Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would contend that 90% of the gratuity and pension have already been provided to the petitioner and an acquittal 3 appeal against the acquittal of the petitioner has been filed by the State and same is pending before the High Court; therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to full and final payment of his retiral dues. 4. Heard. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Special Judge(PC Act), Kondagon, vide judgment dated 24.08.2018 and the petitioner got retired from service on 31.10.2018, but till date his retiral dues have not been settled and finalized, though the department has released 90% of the pension and gratuity amount. 6. The Coordinate Bench, in the matter of Sirottam Prasad Patel (supra), while dealing with a similar issue, in paragraph No. 13, held as under: “13. On the date, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation i.e. 31-01-2005, the petitioner stood acquitted though an appeal, against the acquittal, was pending. Learned State counsel could not bring to the notice of this Court any provision contained in the C. G. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, which confers power on the respondents to delay or defer finalization of pension till the decision of the criminal appeal. Submission of learned State counsel is that as criminal appeal is pending, pension of the petitioner cannot be finalized cannot be accepted, in the absence of there being any specific power in that regard, conferred expressly or impliedly on The government under the provisions of the Rules of 1976. It is not in dispute that there is no specific order passed by the government in exercise of power under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, withholding or withdrawing pension or part thereof whether permanently or for specified period. On the face of the provisions, occasion to exercise such power would arise only if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the petitioner is found guilty. In the present case, no departmental enquiry has been instituted much less any order passed holding the petitioner guilty of any misconduct. Therefore, the pension sanctioning authority also has not passed any order in terms of Rule 8 of the C.G. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, withholding or withdrawing pension or part thereof whether permanently or for specified period on account of conviction for a serious 4 crime or guilty of grave misconduct. In the absence of there being any order either under Rule 8 or Rule 9 of the C.G. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, the respondent authority has no discretion left except to finalize the pension of the petitioner instead of keeping the same pending and releasing only anticipatory pension till the decision of the appeal. Resultantly, it has to be held that pendency of criminal appeal against the order of acquittal is not a valid ground to withhold finalization of pension, in the absence of specific order of a competent authority either under Rule 8 or Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976.” 7. Having considered the present case in the light of Sirottam Prasad Patel (supra), the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation before respondent No. 2 and, in turn, the said authority is directed to decide the same, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The authority concerned shall keep in mind the judgment passed in the matter of Sirottam Prasad Patel (supra) as well as the decision rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Shiv Prasad Banwasi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (WP No.484 of 2018, dt. 25.08.2025) Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim