Dr. Manik Chatterjee, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:43407

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2184 of 2020

¶6

Dr. Manik Chatterjee, S/o Late Shri C.L. Chatterjee, Aged About 66 Years Presently Retired As Professor Anatomy Pt. J.L.N. Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) Presently Working On Contract As Professor Anatomy Medical College, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Medical Education Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Dean Pt. J N M Medical College, Jail Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

{Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate.

¶15

For Respondents/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate.

¶16

Dr. Basant Maheshwari, Professor & Head of the Department of Pharmacology & Additional Charge of Joint Director-cum-Hospital

¶17

Superintendent & Civil Surgeon- cum- Hospital Superintendent in person

¶18

2

¶19

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board

¶20

25-08-2025

¶21

1. By way of filing instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the inaction on the part of the respondents/authorities in releasing the retiral dues including pension and gratuity even after lapse of considerable time of retirement of petitioner from service.

¶22

2. Facts, which emerges from the pleading in this case, are that the petitioner was working as Professor, Anatomy Department, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur and stood retired from service on 31.12.2017 after attaining the age of superannuation. The Department of Medical College, Directorate & Secretariat has issued 'no enquiry certificate', 'no demand certificate' and ‘no event Certificate’ in favour of petitioner on 04.09.2027 before retirement. The Government of Chhattisgarh has implemented Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 for its employee, these rules have been made effective from 01.01.2006. The petitioner has been promoted by the State Government as Associate Professor in the year 2009 accordingly pay of the petitioner was revised as per Revision of Pay Rules, 2009. The petitioner was granted one increment for promoted post. The Medical College after fixation of pay of petitioner has sent it to the Joint Director, Treasury Accounts & Pension for approval and the same was approved by Joint Director, Treasury Account and Pension on so many occasions by the concerned department. On an objection raised by respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 2- Dean, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Raipur issued memo dated 24.05.2018 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.6,30,762/ - claiming to be excess payment made to the petitioner. The

¶23

3

¶24

petitioner objected to the said recovery and filed a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition (S) No. 1553 of 2019, which was allowed vide order dated 06.03.2019 and quashed / set aside the memo dated 24.05.2018, by which, the alleged recovery was ordered to be made, by recording a finding, which reads thus :-

¶25

“ 8. Plain reading of the circumstances enumerated in the preceding paragraphs would clearly reveal that the case of the petitioner also squarely fits in to the situations envisaged by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of State of Punjab and others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc .¹

¶26

9. In view of the same, this Court has no hesitation in reaching to a conclusion that the impugned order Annexure (P-1) dated 24/05/2018 and the action for initiating recovery proceedings by the respondents is totally impermissible under law, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court aforementioned and same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed.

¶27

10. Needless to mention that since order of recovery has been quashed, this Court does not find any good reason for not releasing the retiral dues payable to the petitioner including that of pension.

¶28

2.1. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a representation alongwith the aforesaid and, subsequently, filed a Contempt case (C) No. 304 of 2020, which was disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file fresh

¶29

1 2015 AIR SCW 501

¶30

4

¶31

writ petition seeking release of retiral dues alongwith interest. Hence, the instant writ petition has been preferred.

¶32

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired as Professor, Anatomy Department, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur on 31.12.2017 after completion of 40 years of service, but till November, 2019, he was not granted pension and other retiral benefits merely on the ground that some excess payment has been made to him. He further submits that without affording opportunity of hearing, petitioner was sought for his consent to recover the excess payment vide memo dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure P-4), which was set aside by this Court vide order dated 6.3.2019 passed in WPS No. 1553 / 2019. It is further submitted that ultimately on 29.6.2020, consolidated pension along with arrears of pension was granted to the petitioner through his Bank account, but gratuity was not granted to him. He further submits that on being opinion sought from the office of Advocate General, a “positive” opinion was given, despite that gratuity has not been paid, which has now been directed to be paid vide order dated 22.8.2025, as was informed by the State Counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that though from 29.06.2020, regular pension is being paid to the petitioner, but arrears of pension from 31.12.2017 to 29.6.2020 have been paid after delay of 2 ½ years and gratuity has not been paid yet, hence, he prayed that on delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount, interest @ 18 % per annum may be directed to be paid to the petitioner. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the matter of Hari Prakash Behohar vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another2 .

¶33

2 Writ Appeal No. 762 of 2024, decided on 19.11.2024

¶34

5

¶35

4. The State has filed its reply. Learned counsel for the State while referring to its reply would submit that pension has been released in favour of petitioner vide order dated 4.11.2019 (Annexure R-1). He further submits that in pursuance of the order dated 06.03.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 1553/2019, on being opinion sought for from the office of Advocate General, it had opined against filing of review or writ appeal and also suggested for release of retiral dues to the petitioner. He further submits that though pension was paid / started to the petitioner after about 2 ½ years from the date of his retirement, but ultimately it was paid to the petitioner on 29.6.2020. It is next contended that there is no rule for paying interest on delayed payment of pension. He next submits that because of recovery proceeding initiated against the petitioner, amount of gratuity was not paid to him, but now vide order dated 22.08.2025 passed by respondent No. 2 – Dean, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College (respondent No.2), Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Raipur has been directed to release the amount of gratuity to the petitioner, therefore, he prays that almost relief sought for by the petitioner has already been provided to him, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶37

6. Undisputedly, amount of pension was released with arrears to the petitioner after about 2 ½ years from the date of his retirement, which i.e. delayed payment of pension cannot be appreciated.

¶38

7. It is pertinent to mention here that Rule 57 of the Pension Rules, 1976 deals with the preparation of pension papers, which is reproduced below :-

¶39

6

¶40

Preparation of pension papers.

¶41

(1)Every Head of Office shall undertake the work of preparing pension papers in Form 6 two years before the date on which a Government servant is due to retire on superannuation, or on the date on which he proceeds on leave preparatory to retirement whichever is earlier.

¶42

8. In the matter of Deokinandan v. State of Bihar3 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held 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 Government servant coming within those rules is entitled 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 matters that it may be necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension flows to an officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules.

¶43

9. In the matter of State of West Bengal v. Harish C. Banerjee & others4, their lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that right to receive pension is a valuable right of the government servant, which does not depend upon the sweet will and pleasure of the government and succinctly held as under:-

¶44

“4. Pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and the pleasure of the Government and to receive pension is

¶45

3 (1971) 2 SCC 330

¶46

4 2006 Lawsuit (SC) 1980

¶47

7

¶48

a valuable right of a government servant is a well-settled legal proposition. The question in the present case, however, is not about the deprivation of the said right by the Government by an executive order but is about the constitutional validity of Rule 10(1) providing for withholding of pension or part thereof in certain cases.”

¶49

10. In the matter of Shyam Dev vs. State of Chhattisgarh⁵ , this Court has held retiral benefits including pension and gratuity of a retiring government servant should be paid on the date of his retirement. Relevant para of the judgment has held as under :-

¶50

“11. As noticed in opening paragraph of this order, the Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and others⁶ clearly held that all the payments of retiral dues should be paid on the date of retirement or immediately thereafter and finding no justification for delay in making payments awarded simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from date of her retirement till date of actual payment.”

¶51

11. So far as payment of gratuity to the petitioner is concerned, though the petitioner has retired as a Professor, Anatomy from Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial College, Raipur on 31.12.2017, despite that till date gratuity amount has not been paid yet, though State Counsel submits that now vide order dated 22.08.2025, respondent No. 2 has directed the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension to release the amount of gratuity,

¶52

5 W.P. (S) No. 5256 of 2016, decided on 17.02.2017

¶53

6 2000 AIR SCW 2678

¶54

8

¶55

but after lapse of 7 years & 8 months, gratuity has not been paid to the petitioner.

¶56

12. Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.11.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No. 762 of 2024 held as under : -

¶57

“11. Further, in the matter of Vijay L. Mehrotra (supra) the Supreme court held as under :-

¶58

“3. In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement.

¶59

In this case, there is absolutely no reason for justification for not making the payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellants within 12 weeks from today simple interst at the rate of 18 percent with effect from the date of her retirement, i.e. 31^st August, 1997 till the date of payments.”

¶60

14. In the instant case, there is absolutely no reason or justification given by respondent No. 2 in its reply before learned Single Judge for not making the payment of leave encashment to the appellant from the date of his retirement, for which he is entitled.

¶61

15. For the foregoing reasons and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra (supra) , we direct respondent No. 2 to pay to the appellant simple interest on leave

¶62

9

¶63

encashment at the rate of 18% with effect from the date of his retirement i.e. 31.07.2012 till the date of actual payment, within a period of 12 weeks from today. Order accordingly.

¶64

13. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court, it is quite apparent that petitioner retired as Professor on 31.12.2017, thereafter, after about 2 ½ years i.e. on 29.6.2020, consolidated pension along with arrears of pension was granted to him through his Bank account, but gratuity was not granted to him. In the instant case, there is absolutely no any valid reason or justification given by respondent authorities in its reply for not making payment of retiral dues to the petitioner from the date of his retirement, for which he is entitled.

¶65

14. In view of the foregoing discussion and in view of the law down by the Supreme Court and Division Bench of this High Court in aforecited cases, respondent No. 2 is directed to pay simple interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of pension for a period of 2 ½ years and on gratuity also with effect from the date of his retirement i.e. from 31.12.2017, till the date of actual payment is made, within a period of 12 weeks from today.

¶66

15. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶69

AMITKUMARDUBEY Digitally signedby AMITKUMAR DUBEYDate:2025.09.0115:55:31 +0530

Dr. Manik Chatterjee, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Manik Chatterjee, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Krishna Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Neelmani Dewangan Vs Chhattisgarh State Co. Operative Marketing Federation

Dr. Govind Prasad Tiwari, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dwarika Vs Sushil Bai @ Sushila

Dinesh Agrawal Vs Reeta Ghosal

Dwibhashi Ramprasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh