Ramcharan Meshram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:61305

¶3

Digitally ABHIGYA signed by SAXENA ABHIGYA SAXENA

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6161 of 2023

¶6

1 - Ramcharan Meshram S/o Late Shri K. L. Meshram, Aged About 63 Years R/o House No. D-11a, Street No. 6, Shriram Nagar, Phase - I Near T.V. Tower, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Government Of C.G., Aranya Bhawan, Sector 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The Under Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - The Chief Conservator Of Forest, Raipur Forest Circle, Aranya Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - The Divisional Forest Officer West Bhanupratappur Forest Division, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate

¶16

2

¶17

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

(16.12.2025)

¶20

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:-

¶21

“10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents that the retiral benefits of the petitioner be paid including full pension from the date of retirement, 90% gratuity, Leave Encashment Amount etc., with 24% yearly interest and further be pleased to direct the respondents to complete the departmental inquiries of the petitioner within 3 months, in the interest of justice.

¶22

10.2. That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. ”

¶23

Facts of the case :- The petitioner was appointed to the post of Forest Ranger in the respondent Department vide order dated 06.11.1982. After joining service, the petitioner discharged his duties with utmost honesty, sincerity, and dedication to the complete satisfaction of his superior officers. During the course of his service, the petitioner earned promotions from time to time and was ultimately promoted to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests. The petitioner finally retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2022 while serving as Divisional Manager (Deputy Conservator of Forests), Forest

¶24

3

¶25

Development Corporation Division, Kawardha. However, despite the lapse of more than one year since his retirement, the petitioner has not been paid his lawful retiral benefits in accordance with the applicable rules and law. Hence, the present petition is being filed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the continued apathy and inaction on the part of the respondents in withholding the petitioner’s lawful retiral benefits is arbitrary, unauthorized, unreasonable, illegal, and discriminatory, thereby violating Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was appointed as a Forest Ranger on 06.11.1982 and rendered long, unblemished service with utmost sincerity, earning promotions up to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests, and ultimately retired on 31.08.2022 as Divisional Manager (Deputy Conservator of Forests), Forest Development Corporation Division, Kawardha. During service, two departmental enquiries were initiated against the petitioner. In the first enquiry dated 14.12.2019, at best, the alleged liability of the petitioner was confined to a recovery of Rs. 3,07,739/-, yet no final decision has been taken even after more than four years. In the second enquiry initiated on 03.04.2021, senior departmental authorities, including the Upper Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, categorically recommended dropping of charges or, at the highest, imposition of a minor penalty of censure, holding that no financial loss was caused to the State and that the petitioner

¶27

4

¶28

acted bona fide. Despite such clear recommendations, the enquiry has been kept pending without justification; relevant documents have not been supplied; and the petitioner continues to be harassed, as is evident from the fact that even leave encashment directed to be released vide order dated 09.05.2023 has not been paid. The action of the respondents is further discriminatory as similarly situated officers have been granted retiral benefits in terms of the C.G. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, whereas the petitioner alone has been denied the same, despite a Government circular dated 27.11.2012 mandating a sympathetic approach, particularly in cases of minor procedural lapses. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his undisputed retiral dues at the fag end of his life, especially due to the respondents’ own inaction and delay.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent–State submits that, in compliance with the query raised by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 12.11.2025, a detailed affidavit has been duly filed. As per the said affidavit, three departmental enquiries were conducted against the petitioner, initiated on 04.12.2019, 03.04.2021, and 28.02.2024. The enquiry initiated on 03.04.2021 has been closed vide order dated 19.09.2025. The enquiry initiated on 04.12.2019 has been concluded vide order dated 11.12.2025, whereby an order of recovery to the extent of Rs. 3,07,739/- has been passed and the remaining retiral dues have been directed to be released to the petitioner. The third enquiry, initiated on 28.02.2024, is

¶30

5

¶31

presently pending; however, the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer have been appointed vide order dated 08.12.2025. It is further submitted that the State has made its best endeavours to ensure payment of the petitioner’s retiral dues, and accordingly, the same have been released on 11.12.2025, except for the amount of Rs. 3,07,739/-, which is proposed to be adjusted towards the loss alleged to have been caused to the State.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in response to the aforesaid submissions, states that he is duly satisfied with the documents placed on record by the respondent-State evidencing payment of the said amount to the petitioner.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents with utmost and due care.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that no further adjudication survives in the present matter with respect to the reliefs sought by the petitioner before this Court. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies by filing an application or petition before the competent forum or court, if so advised, after the conclusion of the third departmental enquiry. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to raise the issue regarding entitlement to interest on the amounts already received.

¶35

The respondent authorities are directed to conclude the departmental enquiry pending pursuant to the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the Under Secretary, Department of

¶36

6

¶37

Climate Change. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already retired from service, the said enquiry shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all issues are left open to be considered and decided by the concerned department in accordance with law.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶41

Saxena

Ramcharan Meshram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramcharan Meshram 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyanarayan Agharaiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhugna Mahanand Vs Ashwani Kharsal

Behru Chhura Vs Ashwani Kharsal

Smt. Krishna Majumdar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Ankita Upadhyay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Budhwar Singh Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited