1 CGHC010206682026 2026:CGHC:35767-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 665 of 2026 Umakant Mishra S/o Late Gokul Prasad Mishra, Aged About 82 Years Retired As Senior Agriculture Development Officer Office Of Joint Director Agriculture Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur, Nehru Chowk, District Bilaspur C.G. R/o Village And Post Baitalpur, District Mungeli (C.G.) Mobile No. 7389353700 ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State of Madhya Pradesh Through Its Secretary, Farmers Welfare And Agricultural Development Department, M.P. Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (M.P.) 3 - The Director Directorate of Agriculture, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Director Directorate Of Agriculture And Farmer Welfare, Vindyanchal Bhawan, Arera Hills, Bhopal (M.P.) 5 - The Joint Director Agriculture Department Bilaspur Division, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - The Joint Director Treasury Accounts, And Pension New Composite Building, Near Collectorate Office, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - (Deleted) Hemant Kumar Guha As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-04-2024. 8 - (Deleted) Sharad Rao As Per Honble Court Order Dated-22-04-2024 ... Respondents For Appellant : Dr. Sachin Ashok Kake, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5 & 6/ State of CG : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.2 & 4 / State of MG : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge JUDGMENT ON BOARD Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13 .0 8 .202 6 1. Though Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale, learned counsel for the appellant, is on adjustment, he is present before this Court and seeks an adjournment to file certain additional documents. 2. His presence is appreciated. However, the adjournment sought by him is hereby rejected. All the parties are present. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant / writ petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge on 09.04.2026 passed in WPS No.6201 of 2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Brief facts, as pleaded by the petitioner, are that the appellant / writ petitioner, after obtaining a degree in Agriculture, was appointed as Agriculture Extension Officer, Block Pathariya, District Mungeli (erstwhile Bilaspur), by the Director of Agriculture, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, and joined the said post on 08.08.1962. He was thereafter promoted as Agriculture Assistant, Upper 3 Division, and joined the promotional post on 09.08.1972. According to the Petitioner, he discharged his duties honestly and diligently. However, on 07.08.1982, he was allegedly falsely implicated in a corruption case pursuant to an illegal trap. He was suspended on 26.03.1983 and, thereafter, sanction for prosecution was granted on 21.09.1983. The Petitioner was ultimately convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Bilaspur, on 12.03.1993, pursuant to which his services were terminated on 10.06.1993. 5. The Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 252/1993 against the judgment of conviction, which was subsequently transferred to this Court and allowed, resulting in his acquittal of the charges vide judgment dated 10.05.2012. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the authorities seeking restoration of his service benefits, payment of consequential dues, and other retiral benefits. Pursuant thereto, the Agriculture Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, passed an order dated 21.05.2015 for payment of the claims of the Petitioner, while the order of termination was cancelled and an order regarding his retirement was subsequently passed. A pay-fixation order was thereafter issued on 23.02.2016, pursuant to which various amounts towards leave encashment, gratuity, arrears of pension and arrears of pay were paid to the Petitioner between April 2016 and November 2016. 6. According to the Petitioner, despite the aforesaid orders and his 4 acquittal, he has not been granted the financial benefit of the Kramonnati order which had allegedly been issued during his suspension period, nor has he been granted the benefit of pro- forma promotion. He further claims that there has been considerable delay in payment of certain retiral dues and that no interest has been paid on the delayed payments. The Petitioner also relies upon the service records of similarly situated employees, namely Shri Hemant Kumar Guha and Shri Sharad Rao, who allegedly received the benefit of Kramonnati and promotion, resulting in higher pension. Despite several representations and attempts to obtain the relevant records through the authorities and under the RTI Act, the Petitioner claims that the requisite benefits have not been extended to him. 7. The Petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(S) No. 5232/2017 before this Court, which was withdrawn on 23.03.2022 with liberty to file a duly constituted fresh writ petition. Thereafter, W.P.(S) No. 3798/2022 was filed, but the Petitioner subsequently sought withdrawal thereof on the ground that relevant pleadings and documents had not been incorporated by his counsel. Thereafter, WPS No. 6201/2023 has been filed seeking, inter alia, revision of his pay fixation, grant of Kramonnati and pro-forma promotion, payment of consequential pensionary and other service benefits, along with interest on delayed payments. It was also pleaded that the Petitioner was presently 82 years of age and, therefore, the matter deserves to be considered expeditiously. The said writ 5 petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment delivered on 09.04.2026. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the material available on record and the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellant was acquitted of all the charges by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 252/1993 vide judgment dated 10.05.2012 and, pursuant thereto, the respondents themselves cancelled the order of termination and directed grant of consequential service and retiral benefits. Learned counsel further submits that despite the aforesaid orders, the appellant has not been granted the benefit of Kramonnati and pro-forma promotion, which were otherwise due to him during his service career, resulting in consequential loss in fixation of pay and pension. It is submitted that the appellant has placed on record material showing that similarly situated employees were extended the benefits of Kramonnati and promotion, whereas the appellant has been denied the same without any justifiable reason. The learned Single Judge, therefore, ought to have directed the respondents to consider and extend the said benefits to the appellant in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the appellant's legitimate retiral dues were released after an inordinate delay and without payment of interest. Learned counsel places reliance upon State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, 6 (1985) 1 SCC 429, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that pension and gratuity are valuable rights and that unjustified delay in payment of retiral dues warrants payment of interest. Learned counsel also relies upon S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews, (2018) 10 SCC 804, to submit that prolonged and arbitrary State action resulting in deprivation of dignity, reputation and legitimate rights can warrant appropriate relief and compensation. Learned counsel lastly submits that the appellant is now 82 years of age and has been litigating for several decades for his legitimate service and retiral benefits. The impugned order, according to learned counsel, has failed to consider the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and has resulted in grave prejudice to the appellant. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2026 be set aside and the respondents be directed to grant the benefits of Kramonnati and pro-forma promotion, revise the pay and pension accordingly, release all consequential arrears with appropriate interest, and grant such other relief as this Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. 9. Learned State counsel appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh, while opposing the appeal, submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the pleadings and material available on record and has committed no illegality or infirmity in dismissing writ petition. He further submits that pursuant to the acquittal of the appellant, the competent authorities have already extended the consequential benefits admissible to him in accordance with 7 the applicable rules. It is submitted that the order of termination was cancelled and, thereafter, the appellant's pay was re-fixed vide order dated 23.02.2016, pursuant to which substantial amounts towards arrears of pay, gratuity, leave encashment and pensionary benefits were paid to him. It is further submitted that the claim for grant of Kramonnati and pro-forma promotion cannot be allowed merely on the basis of the alleged benefits extended to other employees, as the entitlement of the appellant has to be determined on the basis of his own service record and the rules applicable to him. Learned State counsel further submits that the appellant's claim for Kramonnati and pro-forma promotion is based primarily upon an alleged order which has not been produced on record and upon comparison with the service benefits granted to certain other employees. Such comparison, in the absence of complete and verified service records, cannot furnish a legal basis for directing grant of the claimed benefits. It is also submitted that considerable delay has occurred in raising the claim and that the authorities cannot be directed to grant benefits contrary to the applicable rules merely on the ground of the appellant's acquittal. Accordingly, learned State counsel submits that no interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge is warranted and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and 4/State of Madhya Pradesh submits that the last service rendered by the appellant, both prior and subsequent to coming into force of Reorganization 8 Act falls within the territorial jurisdiction and administrative control of State of Chhattisgarh, as such, the authorities of State of Madhya Pradesh have no role whatsoever in the matter. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record. 12. The undisputed factual position is that the appellant was convicted by the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Bilaspur, vide judgment dated 12.03.1993 and, pursuant thereto, his services were terminated on 10.06.1993. The said conviction was subsequently set aside by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 1993 vide judgment dated 10.05.2012 and the appellant was acquitted of the charges. Consequent upon his acquittal, the competent authorities cancelled the order of dismissal and treated the appellant as having retired on 31.01.2000. The authorities also extended consequential retiral and monetary benefits to the appellant, including arrears of pay, gratuity, leave encashment and pensionary benefits, pursuant to the orders passed after his acquittal. 13. The principal grievance of the appellant, however, is that he has not been granted the benefit of Kramonnati and pro-forma promotion from the period during which he was not in service and that, consequently, his pay and pension have not been revised to the extent claimed by him. He has also sought interest on delayed payment of retiral dues, compensation of 1 crore and even ₹ 9 double the amount of the benefits already paid to him. The learned Single Judge, after considering the nature of the reliefs claimed and the period during which the appellant remained out of service, has declined to grant the aforesaid reliefs. 14. In our considered opinion, the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge is legally sustainable. The appellant admittedly remained out of service from 10.06.1993 until his acquittal on 10.05.2012 and had already attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2000. Thus, the claim for retrospective grant of Kramonnati and pro-forma promotion requires consideration in the context of the fact that the appellant was not actually borne in service during the relevant period. The mere fact that certain other employees were promoted during the intervening period cannot, by itself, create an indefeasible right in favour of the appellant to claim retrospective promotion or corresponding financial benefits. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal & Others v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, has reiterated the settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date on which it is granted and that an employee has a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules, but there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. The Supreme Court has also reiterated that retrospective promotion or seniority cannot ordinarily be granted from a date when an employee was not borne in the 10 cadre, particularly where such retrospective benefit may adversely affect the rights of other employees. The principle flowing from the said judgment squarely applies to the claim for retrospective Kramonnati and pro-forma promotion raised by the appellant. 16. The appellant seeks to overcome this position by contending that his absence from service was the consequence of his conviction, which was subsequently set aside in appeal. However, even assuming that the appellant's acquittal entitled him to appropriate consequential service and retiral benefits, such entitlement cannot automatically be extended to a retrospective promotion from a date when he had ceased to remain in service, unless such benefit is specifically permissible under the applicable service rules. The authorities, after his acquittal, have already cancelled the order of dismissal and extended consequential retiral benefits. The appellant cannot, merely on the basis of such acquittal, claim every service benefit which might have accrued to him had he continued in service. 17. It is also relevant that the appellant seeks parity with certain employees, namely Shri Hemant Kumar Guha and Shri Sharad Rao, who, according to him, were granted Kramonnati and promotion and consequently received higher pension. However, the grant of relief under Article 226 or in an intra-Court appeal cannot be founded merely upon a comparative claim unless the appellant establishes complete identity of circumstances, 11 eligibility, applicable rules and entitlement. The service records and circumstances of the said employees cannot be presumed to be identical with those of the appellant merely because they may have initially entered service at a similar level. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in declining to grant retrospective service benefits on such basis. 18. So far as the claim for interest on delayed payment of leave encashment, gratuity, arrears of pay and pension is concerned, the appellant has relied upon M. Padmanabhan Nair (supra). There can be no dispute with the proposition that pension and gratuity constitute valuable rights of an employee and that unjustified delay in payment of such dues may, in an appropriate case, warrant payment of interest. However, the question whether the entire delay in the present case was attributable to the respondents and whether the appellant is entitled to interest on each of the amounts claimed depends upon the factual and legal circumstances surrounding the determination and release of the respective dues. In the present case, the authorities, after the appellant's acquittal, undertook the process of cancellation of dismissal, determination of the period of service, pay fixation and settlement of retiral benefits, and substantial amounts were thereafter paid to him. The ratio of M. Padmanabhan Nair (supra) does not, therefore, justify the appellant's claim for 18% compound interest compounded quarterly as a matter of course. 12 19. Likewise, reliance placed upon S. Nambi Narayanan (supra), in support of the claim for compensation of 1 crore, is misplaced in ₹ the facts of the present case. In S. Nambi Narayanan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the criminal proceedings were found to have been malicious and the fundamental rights of the appellant under Article 21 had been gravely violated; in those peculiar circumstances, compensation was awarded as a public law remedy. The said judgment, therefore, cannot be read as laying down a general rule that every person who is acquitted in a criminal case is automatically entitled to constitutional compensation. In the present case, no independent finding of such malicious State action or violation of the appellant's fundamental rights, warranting an award of 1 ₹ crore as compensation, has been established. 20. We are also unable to accept the appellant's prayer for payment of double the amount of leave encashment, gratuity, arrears of pay, arrears of pension and other retiral dues. Such a relief has neither been shown to have any statutory or service-rule basis nor can it be granted merely because there was delay in settlement of the appellant's claims. The writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised to grant monetary benefits in the nature of a penalty or exemplary payment in the absence of a demonstrated legal entitlement. 21. It is further significant that the appellant had earlier instituted W.P. 13 (S) No. 5232 of 2017, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a duly constituted fresh petition. Thereafter, W.P.(S) No. 3798 of 2022 was filed and subsequently withdrawn, leading to the filing of the present W.P.(S) No. 6201 of 2023. While the appellant's advanced age is certainly a relevant consideration for expeditious adjudication, age by itself cannot confer a substantive right to benefits which are otherwise not admissible under the applicable service rules. 22. On an overall consideration of the matter, we find that the learned Single Judge has examined the relevant facts, considered the nature of the reliefs claimed and correctly applied the principles governing retrospective service benefits. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are neither perverse nor contrary to the material on record. No jurisdictional error or patent illegality has been demonstrated which would justify interference in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. 23. Consequently, the present writ appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The judgment dated 09.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6201 of 2023 is hereby affirmed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra