1 2026:CGHC:10500 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3768 of 2024 1 - Meera Verma Wd/o Late Girja Shankar Verma, Aged About 75 Years (Retired Principal, J.L.N. College Sakti), R/o C/o S.C. Shrivastava, B.D. Mahant Up Nagar, Ward No.7, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department (Pension Committee), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director, Directorate Of Higher Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Principal, J.L.N. College Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Director, Treasury, Pension And Account, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.) 6 - Office Of The Accountant General Zero Point, Vidhansabha Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For Respondents/State For Respondent No. 4 : : Mr. Rishab Bisen, Panel Lawyer Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 18/02 /2026 2 1. Petitioner is widow of late Girija Shankar Verma who was Principal of J.L.N. College, Sakti, District – Sakti. Husband of the petitioner stood retired from his service, upon attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2009, however, her husband was not paid his retiral dues including the amount of GPF, GIS, leave encashment, gratuity and pension. Husband of the petitioner filed writ petition bearing WP (S) No. 4177/2012 which was disposed of on 19.09.2012 and the matter was referred for adjudication by the Committee of the Respondent No. 2. The Committee adjudicated upon the order and passed the impugned order dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) and thereafter, a complaint was also lodged in the concerned police station, based upon which, offence bearing Crime No. 275/2014 was registered for alleged commission of offence under Section 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Husband of the petitioner thereafter died on 03.08.2015, but even then, death-cum-retiral dues of her late husband or the family pension is not disbursed. Raising the aforementioned grievance, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction and quash the impugned order dated 15.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) . 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide all the retiral benefit to the petitioner in relation to the husband of petitioner including the General Provident Fund (GPF), GIS, Gratuity, Leave Encashment with interest @ 12% from the date when it was due till the date of actual payment. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction as to direct the respondent authorities to release/fix the full pension of the petitioner along with arrears of pension from the date when it was due till actual payment of pension. The Hon’ble Court may further direct for fixation of pension along with all the consequential benefits. 3 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired while working on the post of Principal on 30.11.2009; till his retirement, no departmental enquiry was pending nor any charge-sheet has been issued. The Respondents orally have withheld the entire retiral dues without any order in this regard and therefore, writ petition was filed by her husband. When this Court passed an order directing the Respondent No. 2 to constitute a Committee for considering the grievance of the husband of petitioner, an order dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) was passed that husband of the petitioner since, 2001 to 2005 has paid less amount of salary to the Professors/Teachers, total amount is Rs. 12,64,463/- but the said amount has not been deposited and thereby, committed financial irregularities and further that by opening a bank account in Punjab National Bank, husband of the petitioner has unauthorizedly transacted a sum of Rs. 22 Lakhs which is unaccounted. 3. It is contention of the counsel for petitioner that before taking a decision by the Committee, petitioner was not served with a charge-sheet for initiating departmental enquiry on any of the allegations during lifetime of the husband of the petitioner/employee and therefore, merely an observation made by the Committee will not be sufficient to prove and held the employee guilty that he has committed financial irregularities. The order of Committee is passed after retirement of the petitioner; even if some proceeding is to be initiated against the retired employee, then, the provision under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Pension Rules, 1976) are to be followed which is lacking in this case and therefore, the respondents cannot withheld any of the amount which is accured to the to the deceased employee. 4 4. It is also the contention of the counsel for petitioner that even the criminal case could not be decided as after registration of the crime, husband of the petitioner died on 03.08.2015. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the act of the respondent authorities in withholding the death-cum-retiral dues of the petitioner’s husband is per se arbitrary and illegal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that pursuant to the writ petition filed by the husband of the petitioner, a Committee was constituted and the Committee after examining the entire facts of the case has passed an order dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) clearly mentioning that the husband of the petitioner is involved in financial irregularities. The order dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) is passed in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 would submit that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition with inordinate delay of 10 years without any justification and assigning reasons therein. The decision of the Committee is dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure P/1), during lifetime of the husband of petitioner who died in 03.08.2015. However, husband of the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) during his lifetime. He submits that the petitioner’s husband was involved in embezzling the huge amount of Rs. 02 Crores. He did not appear before the Committee on most of the dates except for some days. It is also the contention of counsel for Respondent No. 4 that initially, anticipatory pension was paid to the petitioner of Rs. 6,000/- which was stopped w.e.f. 22.10.2014, but that order was also not put to challenge. He contended that the case is to be dismissed on delay and latches. In support of his contention he places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 5 SCC 108, Sushil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 64, Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648, Union of India & Ors. Vs. N. Murugesan & Ors reported in (2022) 2 SCC 25, Chairman, State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. M.J. James reported in (2022) 2 SCC 301. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. It is not in dispute that husband of the petitioner i.e. Late Girija Shankar Verma retired from service on 30.01.2009 as Principal of J.L.N. College, Sakti, District – Sakti. During the period when, husband of the petitioner was in service, he was not served with any show-cause notice or any departmental enquiry was pending against him as no such stand is taken by the respondents in their reply in this regard, even when specific ground has been taken in the writ petition in Para 9.2. Charges of financial irregularities against an employee can be proved only in a full-fledged departmental enquiry or in a criminal case after conclusion of trial. In the case at hand, neither there is a concluded departmental enquiry proving the charges against the petitioner of financial irregularities nor the criminal case registered against the husband of petitioner is culminated in conviction. 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the order dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) mentioning that the husband of petitioner has committed financial regularities as mentioned therein to be proved can only be an observation of the Committee based on the material available or can be an allegation. It cannot be said to be a proof of charge against the employee. In absence of any departmental enquiry following due process of law as provided under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 or complete trial in a criminal case and therefore, the order dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) to that extent 6 cannot be taken into consideration for withholding the retiral dues of an employee. The procedure for withholding of a pension is provided under Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 which is relevant in the facts of the case is extracted below for ready reference:- “9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. (1)The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if, in any departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:Provided that the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed :Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below [the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time] [Substituted by Notification No. B-25-9-96-PWC-IV, dated 18-6- 1996 (w.e.f. 1-1-1986).]; (2) (a) The departmental proceedings [xxx] [Omitted by Notification No. FB-25-31-95-PWC- IV, dated 22-12-1995 (w.e.f. 26-1-1996).], if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced, in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service :Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall submit a report regarding its findings to the Governor. (b)The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment :-(i)shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor;(ii)shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and(iii)[ shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable 7 to departmental proceedings : [Substituted by Notification No. FB-6-3-78-N-II-IV, dated 10-11- 1978 (w.e.f. 10-11-1978).](a)in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service in case it is proposed to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period; or(b)in which an order of recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service if it is proposed to order recovery from his pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government]. (3)No judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re- employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. (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] [Inserted by Notification No. FB-6-3-78-N- II-IV dated 10-11-1978 (w.e.f. 10-11- 1978)] :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 :Provided also that- (a)If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of one year from the 8 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]. (5) Where the Government decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. (6)For the purpose of this rule- (a)departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b)judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted- (i)in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and (ii)in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court..” 10.In case of State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210, it has been held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that gratuity and pension are not bounty and it is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of property. This right to property cannot be taken 9 away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 11.Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 has held as under:- “It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these bene- fits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and unblem- ished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India; (1983) 1 SCC 305 by Justice D.A. Desai, who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words: (SCC pp.319-20, paras 18-20) "18. The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pen- sion? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service? 19. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial di- vision of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition. 20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratituous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept un- der the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Govern- ment servant coming within those rules is enti- tled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon any one's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied maters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab and Anr. V. Iqbal Singh (1976) 2 SCC 1." It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an em- ployee and is in the nature of "property". This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the 10 provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 14. The right to receive pension was recognised as a right to property by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar." 12.In the aforementioned facts of the case, in absence of any proceedings against the husband of petitioner during his period of service of initiating any departmental enquiry or any proceedings drawn after his retirement for withholding pension, in the opinion of this Court, the order dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is quashed. 13.So far as the argument raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 of filing of the writ petition with inordinate delay of about 10 years is concerned, it is a case where the employee after his retirement from service have approached the authorities for release of his retiral dues and when the retiral dues was not released, he filed writ petition bearing WP (S) No. 4177/2012 which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 19.09.2012 reverting the matter to the Committee constituted by the State for deciding the dispute of pensions and retiral dues. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WP (S) No. 4177/2012, the Committee has decided the case on 02.07.2014 directing for registration of a criminal case against the husband of the petitioner/employee and from the pleadings made in the writ petition, it is appearing that the the FIR was registered against the husband of petitioner in the year 2014 itself for alleged commission of offence under Section 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, after retirement. 14.In the aforementioned facts of the case, it could not be ruled out that the husband of the petitioner might have puzzled mentally due to registration of a criminal case and would have made an attempt to wriggle out from the situation. In that process within a period of 01 year from the registration of the case, husband of the petitioner/employee died on 11 03.08.2015. Petitioner is a widow and therefore, the delay in filing of this writ petition in the opinion of this Court is to be considered with a lenient approach. All the amount due to the employee is accrued to him and after his death to the petitioner. The dues are GPF, GIS, Leave Encashment and Gratuity and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner would be entitled for all the retiral dues of her husband accrued to him on the date of his superannuation. 15.So far as the amount of family pension of the petitioner is concerned, petitioner has approached this Court only after 09 years of the death of her husband and therefore, keeping in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (Supra), it is ordered that petitioner will be entitled for the family pension prior to 03 years from the date of filing of this writ petition i.e. from 01.07.2021. 16. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY