1 2026:CGHC:8705 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3961 of 2023 Smt. Chaiti Bai Kurre Wd/o Late Shri Sadaram Kurre Aged About 68 Years R/o 517, Dumar Talab, Mohaba Bazar, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Q. No. 5 And 6, Power House Colony, CSEB Campus, Gudiyari Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Executive Director (Finance) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Q. No. 5 And 6, Power House Colony, CSEB Campus, Gudiyari Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Executive Engineer Nagar Sambhag Uttar, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Q. No. 5 And 6, Power House Colony, CSEB Campus, Gudiyari Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Parvati Kurre W/o Late Shri Sadaram Kurre Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Bahnakadi, Tahsil Arang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.19 18:50:54 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 18.02.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following reliefs :- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the order dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 4 being illegal and also this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to issue the writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents and direct them to pay the family pension to the petitioner with all dues by calculating 18% Per Annum interest on dues till the actual payment and any other service benefit to payable to her late husband within a stipulated time limit, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire relevant records from the respondents. 10.3 That, Any other order of orders or Direction or Relief though just and fit in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife and widow of Late Shri Sadaram Kurre, who was working on the post of Attendant Grade-II (L) in the department of the respondents. After attaining the age of superannuation, Late Shri Sadaram Kurre was receiving pension from the respondent 3 department till his natural demise on 09.11.2015. The petitioner submits that she is the first and legally wedded wife of Late Shri Sadaram Kurre, and in support of her status she has placed on record a copy of her Identity Card issued by the Election Commission. It is alleged that Smt. Pawati Kurre (respondent No. 5) claims to be the second wife of Late Shri Sadaram Kurre; however, such marriage is not legally valid during subsistence of the first marriage. In this regard, the office of respondent No. 3 had also issued a letter dated 11.08.2009 acknowledging the relevant position. 3. After the death of her husband, both the petitioner and respondent No. 5 jointly submitted an application dated 23.11.2015 before respondent No. 4 seeking grant of family pension. Thereafter, the Manager (Pension), Office of respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 02.05.2016, called for the entire service and pension records from respondent No. 4. Subsequently, respondent No. 4, by letter dated 30.07.2016, directed the petitioner to obtain a succession certificate from a competent civil court for the purpose of release of family pension. 4. In compliance thereof, the petitioner instituted a civil proceeding before the Court of Learned Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur (C.G.). In the said proceedings, respondent No. 5 filed her reply and categorically submitted her no objection for issuance of succession certificate in favour of the petitioner. Learned Second 4 Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur (C.G.), vide order dated 15.09.2022, held in paragraph 11 of the judgment that pension is neither a “debt” nor a “security” within the meaning of the relevant provisions and is governed by Government Rules; therefore, a succession certificate in respect of family pension could not be granted by the civil Court. However, the learned Court issued a succession certificate to the petitioner for an amount of Rs.2,78,495/- relating to other admissible dues. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 20.12.2022 before respondent No. 3 along with a copy of the order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the Learned Civil Court and requested for grant of family pension in her favour. However, respondent No. 4, without properly appreciating the findings recorded by the competent civil court, passed the impugned order dated 05.01.2023 rejecting the petitioner’s representation solely on the ground that in the absence of a succession certificate specifically in respect of pension, the family pension could not be released. 6. Despite repeated requests and representations made to the respondent authorities, family pension, which is legally due and payable to her as the widow of the deceased employee, has not been granted till date. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary and mechanical rejection of her lawful claim and continued denial of family pension, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in withholding the retiral benefits of the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to settled principles of law. It is contended that the petitioner had rendered continuous service till attaining the age of superannuation and was neither placed under suspension nor subjected to any disciplinary proceedings. Despite this, her lawful salary and pensionary benefits were withheld without issuance of any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel further submits that even though the retiral dues have subsequently been released after considerable delay, the petitioner has suffered undue financial hardship and mental agony. Hence, the petitioner is legally entitled not only to the retiral benefits but also to reasonable interest on the delayed payment, as retiral dues constitute a vested right and cannot be withheld without authority of law. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is not legally entitled to payment of any interest upon the retiral/service benefits, as there is no specific statutory provision mandating payment of interest in the facts of the present case. It is further submitted that although initially the retiral dues could not be finalized, the competent authority has, during the pendency of the present petition, examined the matter and released the admissible retiral benefits to the petitioner. Learned State counsel contends that in view of the subsequent development, the grievance of the 6 petitioner, so far as it relates to payment of principal retiral dues, stands redressed. However, since the issue regarding entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the delayed payment has not yet been adjudicated or determined by the competent authority, an appropriate direction may be issued for consideration of the said claim in accordance with law. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that the sole grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition was with regard to non-payment of family pension upon the demise of her husband. It is submitted that during the pendency of the present proceedings and pursuant to the developments that took place before this Court, the competent authority has duly considered the matter and issued the Pension Payment Order in favour of the petitioner. It is therefore contended that the relief sought by the petitioner already stands granted and the cause of action no longer survives. It is lastly submitted that nothing further remains for adjudication and the present petition has become infructuous and deserves to be dismissed accordingly. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record. 11. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, particularly the fact that the principal retiral dues have already been released during the pendency of the present petition and that the surviving grievance of the petitioner now relates to grant of interest on the 7 delayed payment, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the petition with a direction to the petitioner to submit a detailed and comprehensive representation before the competent authority specifically raising the claim for interest on the delayed disbursement of retiral benefits. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit a detailed representation, along with all relevant documents and calculation of the period of delay, before the authority concerned within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after due application of mind, within a further period of four weeks thereafter. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim for interest, and the authority shall decide the same independently, in accordance with governing rules and applicable legal principles. 14. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the present petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh