1 CGHC010198042018 2026:CGHC:34110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4307 of 2018  Narendra Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Haridayal Sharma Aged About 67 Years R/o Flat No. 308, Shwet Hans Apartment, Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Daganiya, Police Station - Deendayal Upadhayay Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Co - Operative Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Vipnan Sangh Maryadit, Through Its Managing Director , Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Vipran Sangh Maryadit , 880 Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Accountant General , Accountant , Pension And Treasury Department Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05.08 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 15.05.2018 and directed the respondent to provide the retiral dues and remaining 10% of gratuity amount with 12% from the date of his retirement. 10.2 That, the respondent may also be directed to SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.06 12:28:48 +0530 2 consider the kramonnati salary of the petitioner which has been come into force since 2006. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition” 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner, who was working with the respondent No. 2 on the post of Regional Engineer got retired from services on attaining age of superannuation on 31.05.2011. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him. He was inflicted with penalty of recovery of Rs. 10,000/- vide order dated 30.11.2017. The respondent No. 2 failed to make payment of retiral dues immediately after retirement of the petitioner. An amount of 90% of gratuity i.e. Rs. 8,94,497/- out of 9,93,886/- was paid to the petitioner on 23.05.2017 and rest 10% amount was paid on 06.01.2018. The amount of General Insurance Scheme (GIS) i.e. Rs. 47,444/- was paid to the petitioner on 06.01.2018, an amount of leave encashment of Rs. 2,40,524/- was also paid by the department on 10.01.2018. 3. Mr. Tripathi would contend that the petitioner was entitled for all dues immediately after retirement and there was delay in payment, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for penal interest. He would contend that earlier writ petitions were filed and directions were issued to the respondent department to take appropriate decision, but representation made by the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 15.05.2018. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 would submit that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner prior to his 3 superannuation, which concluded on 30.11.2017, wherein penalty of recovery of Rs. 10,000/- was inflicted. He would submit that as the departmental enquiry was pending, payment could not be made and there was no fault on the part of the department. It is argued that the amount of gratuity paid to the petitioner includes interest component and the claim of the petitioner in this regard is erroneous. He would further submit that the amount of General Insurance Scheme (GIS) was paid to the petitioner including interest part. He would submit that the petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for other respondents would endorse the submissions made by Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. It is not a case of the petitioner that the amount of gratuity, amount of GIS or other benefits extended to the petitioner do not include interest component rather petitioner has claimed interest part over delayed payment only on the ground that he got retired from services on 31.05.2011, whereas retiral dues were paid in the year 2017 and 2018. It is not in dispute that departmental enquiry remained pending against the petitioner till 30.11.2017 and after its conclusion, the department paid admissible retiral dues. The total amount of gratuity assessed by the department was Rs. 9,93,886/- and 90% was paid to the petitioner on 23.05.2017. It is nowhere stated in the writ petition that the said amount does not include interest component. It appears that 10% remaining amount was paid after 7-8 months and certainly, the petitioner would be entitled to get interest on that amount. With regard to GIS fund, it 4 is nowhere pleaded that interest was not paid on the said amount, thus, the petitioner could not establish the fact that interest component was not added to the said amount while making payment. 8. Having considered above-discussed facts, in opinion of this Court the petitioner is entitled for interest on remaining 10% of amount of gratuity, which was paid on 06.01.2018 i.e. Rs. 99,389/- as earlier 90% of amount was paid on 23.05.2017. The petitioner shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 6% on said amount from 23.05.2017 till 06.01.2018. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant