Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Vs Ravindra Kumar Kukreja — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Vs Ravindra Kumar Kukreja — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Scope of the present MCC: whether the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by this Court in WA No. 259/2025 can be clarified/modified to reduce the amount of interest payable on the withheld retiral benefits, or whether the application, though styled as clarification/modification, impermissibly seeks reconsideration of relief already granted. +1 more

Court's answer

The directions issued in the order dated 22.04.2025 in WA No. 259/2025 are clear, specific and unambiguous, leaving no scope for any clarification.

Ratio / Principle

The power of clarification or modification cannot be exercised as a cloak for review; such applications are maintainable only for removal of ambiguity or correction of clerical errors and cannot be used to re-agitate issues already decided. No ambiguity, clerical error or accidental slip was pointed out, and the applicant's attempt to reopen the concluded adjudication is beyond the scope of the present proceedings.

Key takeaways

The award of 18% simple interest on the withheld retiral dues was granted in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra and Hari Prakash Beohar (supra), wherein delayed payment of retiral dues warrants a higher rate of interest as a measure of compensation; the direction is a conscious and reasoned determination and does not call for modification notwithstanding the bank's plea of financial hardship.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous Case for clarification/modification dismissed — The power of clarification or modification cannot be exercised as a cloak for review; such applications are maintainable only for removal of ambiguity or correction of clerical errors, not for re-agitating decided issues (relying on Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh). The directions in the Division Bench order dated 22.04.2025 in WA No. 259/2025 — payment of withheld retiral dues with 18% simple interest w.e.f. 31.05.2014 within 12 weeks — were clear, specific and unambiguous, leaving no scope for clarification. The 18% rate was consciously fixed in consonance with Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and State of U.P. vs. Hari Prakash Beohar, delayed payment of retiral dues warranting higher interest as compensation, and does not call for modification on the bank's plea of financial hardship. M.C.C. dismissed; no order as to costs. (Per Arvind Kumar Verma, J.; Coram: Ramesh Sinha, CJ and Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)

1

2026:CGHC:14071-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MCC No. 583 of 2025

Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through The Chairman, Corporate Office, Sector 24, Plot No. 47, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant

versus

Ravindra Kumar Kukreja S/o Late Shri Raghuveer Pal Kukreja Aged About 61 Years Retired Officer Scale- I.I.I., Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, R/o M.I.G. -521, Padmanabhpur, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.)

---- Respondent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

Per Arvind Kumar Verma, J.

24.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for the applicant. Also

heard Mr. G.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent.

2

2. The present case has been listed today in view of the order passed in MCC No.36 of 2026.

3. By way of present MCC, the applicant made the following prayer :

“(a) Allow the present petition seeking clarification/ modification of the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WA No. 259/2025 to the extent as mentioned in the present petition, reducing the amount of interest to be paid on the withheld amount of retiral benefits as it deems appropriate.

(b) Pass any further appropriate writ, order, direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

4. The present MCC has been filed for clarification/modification of the order dated 22.04.2025 passed in WA No.259 of 2025.

5. Brief facts of this case is that the Petitioner bank is a government owned scheduled bank sponsored by State Bank Of India and is established under the provisions of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976. The Respondent No.1 is a former employee of the Petitioner bank and was was working as Officer Scale 1 and he stood retired on 31.05.2014. The respondent herein had preferred a writ appeal against the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by Learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 4678/2015, whereby writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed and charge sheet was quashed and it was directed that the withheld retiral benefit from 31.05.2014 was to be paid within 45 days. However, no interest was granted against the withheld amount. The respondent herein also preferred

3

a review petition claiming interest which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.03.2025 Review Petition No. 61/25. Aggrieved by the said orders the present Writ Appeal was filed seeking direction for grant of interest on retiral benefit.

6. The respondent was working as Officer Scale 1 under applicant bank i.e. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank and he stood retired on 31.05.2014. Thereafter, before 2 days of retirement, the respondent was informed that a decision has been taken to initiate departmental enquiry and the retiral dues of the respondent was withheld. The charge sheet was issued on 26.05.2014 and further on 17.08.2024, decision was taken to initiate departmental enquiry. The departmental enquiry was commenced only when the charge sheet was issued which was issued much after retirement. The respondent immediately challenged the charge sheet and withholding of retiral dues and further to grant the withhold retiral dues with 18% interest. The Hon'ble Single bench held that there is no provision for initiation of departmental enquiry after retirement and quashed charge sheet and the withheld retiral benefit from 31.05.2014 was ordered to be paid within 45 days but no order was made with respect to the interest. A review petition was also filed to consider the claim of interest mentioning that he has prayed for interest also as prayed in relief but same was also dismissed.

4

7. Thereafter, the present Writ Appeal was filed seeking a direction for payment of 18% interest on the withheld amount. This Court was pleased to allow the present appeal vide order dated 22.04.2025 and directed the present applicant to pay the respondent 18% simple interest on the withheld retiral dues w.e.f. 31.05.2014 till date, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the order. It is most humbly submitted that the present application has filed with a limited prayer of seeking a modification on the quantum of interest awarded by this Hon'ble Court. The said prayer is made as the same will cause severe financial difficulty to the appellant bank.

8. In the present case the amount payable to the respondent is adding up to be about Rs. 78,68,293 (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Two hundred Ninety three), which includes the entire retirement benefits of the Respondent amounting to Rs. 33,97,084/- and the amount of interest to be paid is amounting to Rs. 44,71,209/-.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the appellant bank is a Regional Rural Bank which is entirely sponsored by the Central and the State Government. The appellant bank is a NonProfit Bank which has been established by the government to provide beneficial schemes to the farmers. There has never been an attempt on the part of the bank to intentionally cause hardship

5

to any of its employees. The payment of such exorbitant interest will cause extreme hardship to the financial condition of the bank.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

11. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties.

12. This Court has carefully perused the aforesaid order. The writ appeal was allowed after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. This Court, while deciding the writ appeal, placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and State of U.P. vs. Hari Prakash Beohar , and accordingly directed the respondent-Bank to pay the retiral dues along with 18% simple interest within a period of 12 weeks.

13. The directions issued in the said order are clear, specific and unambiguous, leaving no scope for any clarification. The present application, though styled as one for modification/clarification, in essence seeks reconsideration of the relief already granted, particularly with regard to the rate of interest awarded, which is impermissible in law.

14. It is well settled that the power of clarification or modification cannot be exercised as a cloak for review. In Delhi

6

Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that applications for clarification or modification cannot be used to rehear the matter or to alter the substance of the judgment. Similarly, in State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh , it has been reiterated that such applications are maintainable only for removal of ambiguity or correction of clerical errors, and not for re-agitating issues already decided.

15. In the present case, no ambiguity, clerical error, or accidental slip has been pointed out by the applicant. On the contrary, the applicant seeks to reopen the concluded adjudication, which is beyond the scope of the present proceedings.

16. So far as the contention regarding the rate of interest is concerned, the same also does not merit consideration. The award of 18% simple interest has been granted in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra and Hari Prakash Beohar (supra) , wherein it has been consistently held that delayed payment of retiral dues warrants grant of higher rate of interest as a measure of compensation. Thus, the direction regarding interest is a conscious and reasoned determination and does not call for any modification.

17. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no merit in the present Miscellaneous Case.

7

18. Accordingly, the instant M.C.C. is hereby dismissed . No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

Vasant