Mahendra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:5931

¶3

NAFR

¶4

RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.02.03 17:36:49 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 12198 of 2025

¶7

Mahendra Singh S/o Late Prithvi Pal Singh Aged About 62 Years Retired Plant Attendant Grade-2, R/o Sarda Colony, Jamnipali Darri, District Korba C.G.

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶11

2 - C G State Power Generation Company Ltd. Through Managing Director Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya Raipur C.G.

¶12

3 - Chief Engineer (Human Resource) C.G. State Power Generation Ltd. Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya Raipur C.G.

¶13

4 - Chief Engineer (Production) Korba Thermal Power Station (East) C.S.P.G.C.L. Korba, District- Korba C.G.

¶14

5 - Superintendent Engineer (Coal Traffic Internal Management) Hasdeo Thermal Power Station, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Korba- East

¶15

Respondent(s)

¶16

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Harsh Tripathi, Advocate
For Resp. No. 1/State	: Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. GA
For Resp. No. 2 to 5	: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate

¶18

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

Order on Board

2

03/02/2026

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

¶23

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to call for service records pertaining to petitioner from respondents for kind perusal.

¶24

10.2 This Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith make payment of superannuation pension and pensionary benefits to petitioner.

¶25

10.3 Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the costs of this petition in favour of the petitioner.”

¶26

(a) According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Plant Attendant Grade-III on 18.10.1982 and was regularized on 21.08.1984. He was thereafter terminated from service on the allegation of having submitted a false I.T.I. certificate, without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner assailed the termination order before the Labour Court. The claim was initially dismissed on 16.11.1988 on the ground of limitation. In appeal, the Industrial Court, Bilaspur, by order dated 17.03.1994, set aside the dismissal and remanded the matter for consideration of the application for condonation of delay. Upon remand, the Labour Court, by order dated 13.06.2006, directed reinstatement of the petitioner with 25% back wages.

¶27

(b) According to the petitioner, the Appeals preferred by both i.e. the petitioner and respondents were dismissed by the Industrial Court on

¶28

3

¶29

03.05.2008. The employer thereafter invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court in W.P. No. 4239/2008. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was reinstated pursuant to an interim order. Subsequently, by order dated 19.03.2013, this Court set aside the Labour Court’s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, while directing continuance of the petitioner in service. After remand, the Labour Court, by judgment dated 10.07.2013, again directed reinstatement of the petitioner with 50% back wages.

¶30

(c) According to him, in appeals preferred by both the employer and employee, the Industrial Court, by common order dated 27.08.2014, dismissed the employer’s appeal and enhanced back wages payable to the petitioner to 80%. The said order is challenged by the employer in W.P.(L) No. 08/2015 and W.P.(L) No. 09/2015, which are pending before this Court. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioner was retired on attaining the age of superannuation by order dated 28.02.2025. Despite retirement, pension and other retiral benefits have not been released. A representation submitted by the petitioner on 12.08.2025 has also not yielded any result.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondents in withholding superannuation pension and pensionary benefits is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Rules 32 and 73 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1973. It is contended that once the petitioner has been permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, denial of pension and retiral dues amounts to imposing

¶32

4

¶33

an unwarranted punishment without authority of law. The respondents, it is urged, have no jurisdiction to withhold pensionary benefits, particularly in absence of any statutory provision or reasoned order. Learned counsel further submits that pension is a vested right and nonpayment thereof without assigning reasons is violative of principles of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner is not at fault and the impugned action has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel prays for appropriate relief and seeks liberty to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing. Learned counsel further submits that even where departmental or judicial proceedings are pending, Rule 64 of the CG Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 mandates payment of provisional pension and gratuity. It is contended that the Rules do not contemplate complete withholding of pensionary benefits.

¶34

Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5 opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact that vide order dated 21/12/2018, the departmental charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, wherein he appeared and adduced his evidence and subsequently, he approached this Court by filing a petition bearing WPS No. 1819/2019, wherein an order of status-quo has been passed. He would further submit that the entitlement of the petitioner to pension and pensionary benefits is inextricably linked with the outcome of the pending W.P.(L) proceedings. It is contended that any direction for release of retiral dues at this stage would be premature and may prejudice the rights of the

¶35

5

¶36

respondents. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that if any relief is considered, the same may be made subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petitions.

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as material available on record.

¶38

For the sake of convenience, it would be relevant to quote sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 and Rule 64 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which read thus :-

¶39

“Sub rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976:-

¶40

(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-cumretirement gratuity as provided in (rule 64), as the case may be, shall be sanctioned;

¶41

XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

¶42

Rule 64 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976:-

¶43

64. Provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceeding may be pending.- (1)(a) In respect of Government servants refer to in sub-rule (4) of rule 9 the Head of Office shall authorise the payment of provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension and 50% of gratuity taking into consideration the gravity of charges levelled against such Government servant, which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service up

¶44

6

¶45

to the date of retirement of the Government servant or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement, up to the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension.

¶46

(b) The provisional pension shall be drawn on establishment pay bill and paid to retired Government servant by the Head of Office during the period commencing from the date of retirement to the date on which upon conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are passed by the competent authority.

¶47

(c) Provisional gratuity shall be drawn on establishment pay bill and paid to retired Government servant by the Head of Office after adjusting dues mentioned in sub-rule [(2)] of rule 60, under intimation to Audit Office. Payment of provisional pension/gratuity made under sub-rule (1) shall be adjusted against final retirement benefit sanctioned to such Government servant upon conclusion of such proceedings, but no recovery shall be made where the pension/gratuity finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension/gratuity or the pension/gratuity is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period.

¶48

It is evident that the petitioner was permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. There is no material to show that any order has been passed under Rule 9 of the CG Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 for withholding or withdrawing pension on the ground of proved misconduct. Pension being a statutory right can be withheld only in the manner prescribed under the Rules.

¶49

Rule 9(4) and 64 of the Pension Rules, 1976 mandates that even where

¶50

7

¶51

departmental or judicial proceedings are pending, the retiring employee is entitled to provisional pension and admissible gratuity. The scheme of the Rules does not contemplate complete denial of pensionary benefits. Rule 65 permits only adjustment of ascertainable Government dues from gratuity.

¶52

Mere pendency of Writ Petitions does not confer jurisdiction upon the respondents to withhold pension and retiral benefits in absence of any express statutory order. At the same time, the concern of the respondents regarding the impact of the pending writ petitions on final entitlement deserves consideration.

¶53

This Court finds that the action of the respondents in withholding pension and pensionary benefits is not supported by the provisions of the CG Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The petitioner, having been allowed to retire, is entitled at least to provisional pensionary benefits under Rule 9(4) and 64 of the Rules, 1976, subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petitions.

¶54

Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to process and release the provisional pension and admissible pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner in accordance with the CG Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 within a period of one month, subject to the final outcome of W.P.(L) Nos. 08/2015 and 9/2015 as also WPS No. 1819/2019. It is clarified that such release shall not create any equity in favour of the petitioner and shall abide by the result of the pending writ

¶55

8

¶56

petitions.

¶57

In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost(s).

¶58

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶59

Rahul

Mahendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Singh 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

Ram Kumar Sinha Vs Baisakhuram

Smt. Jaibun Nisha Vs Mohd. Sikandar

Mohammad Shafi Vs Shyamnsundar Khandelwal

Sohan Lal Meshram, Vs Executive Engineer

Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs Rameshwar

Raj Kumar Vs Rajanikant (Dead) through Lrs.