1 2026:CGHC:17657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1052 of 2025 1 - Yogram Lahre S/o Late Bhagauram Lahre Aged About 67 Years Retired Principal, R/o Village Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan Second Block, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Education Division, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Accountant General Treasury Account And Pension Zero Point Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - District Education Officer, Sarangarh District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 7 - District Education Officer, Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.04.23 19:25:09 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 17/04/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities to release withheld dues amoutn as such gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of 7th Pay, GPF, with interest and also to issue direction to the respondent authorities to finalize pension within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. 10.2. Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that petitioner was working on the post of Principal and retired from the service on 29.02.2020 on attaining age of superannuation. He contended that after retirement of the petitioner he has not been paid retiral dues immediately on the ground that one departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner pursuant of which charge memo was issued on 15.01.2019. Even after lapse of long time his retirement retiral dues has not been paid. He submits that enquiry proceedings even after lapse of more than 5 years have not been complied and no orders has been 3 passed on the enquiry initiated against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is entitled for all withheld retiral dues under rule 9(4) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, “the Rules of 1976”). Referring to proviso to Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 1976, it is submitted that in the event departmental enquiry proceedings are not completed within a period of 2 years from the date of institution, the entire amount of pension so withheld stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of 2 years. As petitioner stood retired in the month of Feb., 2020 and from that, date about 6 years have been lapsed and therefore, under the pension rules, petitioner is entitled for entire withheld amount of pension. 3. Counsel for the respondent-State would oppose the submission of counsel for petitioner and he would submit that petitioner is being paid 75% of anticipated pension owing to the pendency of the departmental enquiry. He also contended that amount of GPF & GIS has been paid to the petitioner. He submits that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner as of now has been completed and it has been forwarded and proceedings has been initiated to take opinion of Public Service Commission on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer. Final order should be passed immediately after receipt of opinion of Public Service Commission. 4. Counsel for the respondent No.5 would submit that as of now grievance of the petitioner is against the respondent-State. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner while working on the post of Principal, retired from the service on 29.02.2020. On the date of his superannuation one departmental enquiry was pending. The departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner till date has not been finalized, as final order has not been passed on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer. The proviso has been read upon by the counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention i.e. rule 9 (4) is extracted below for ready reference : “(4) In the case of a Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub- rule (2), a provisional pension and death-cum- retirement gratuity as provided in [Rule 64] [Substituted by Notification No. B-6-1-77-PWC-IV, dated 26-8-1996 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).], as the case may be, shall be sanctioned : [Provided that where pension has already been finally sanctioned to a Government servant prior to institution of departmental proceedings, the Governor may, by order in writing, withhold, with effect from the date of institution of such departmental proceedings fifty per cent of the pension so sanctioned subject however that the pension payable after such withholding is not reduced to less than [the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time] Provided further that where departmental proceedings have been instituted prior to the 25th October, 1978, the first proviso shall have effect as it for the words "with effect from the date of institution of such proceedings" the words "with effect from a date not later than thirty days from the date aforementioned," had been substituted : 5 Provided also that- (a)If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of one year from the date of institution thereof, fifty per cent of the pension withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of one year; (b)If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of two years from the date of institution the entire amount of pension so withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of two years; and (c)If in the departmental proceedings final order is passed to withhold or withdraw the pension or any recovery is ordered, the order shall be deemed to take effect from the date of the institution of departmental proceedings and the amount, of pension since withheld shall be adjusted in terms of the final order subject to the limit specified in sub-rule (5) of Rule 43].” 7. Perusal of the aforesaid extracted provision would make it clear that when departmental proceeding is not completed within the period prescribed of 2 years the entire amount of pension so withheld is to restore on the expiration of aforesaid period of 2 years, and further in the case in hand from the date of superannuation 6 years has already been passed and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner would be entitled for all withheld pension under the provisions as extracted above for ready reference in particular in rule 9 (4) (3) (b). 8. In the aforementioned facts of the case and relevant provision, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-State to disburse withheld pension in favour of the petitioner 6 expeditiously preferably within a further period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stand disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi