Haldhar Kumar Gangboir Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2026:CGHC:11879

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 5307 of 2025

¶6

Haldhar Kumar Gangboir S/o Late Shri Bhaiya Ram Gangboir Aged About 63 Years R/o Near 7th Day School, Kripal Nagar, Kohka, P.O. Supela, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

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

¶10

2 - Director Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - District Education Officer Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. G.A.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶14

ORDER ON BOARD

¶15

12.03.2026

¶16

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

¶17

“i. To kindly issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to forthwith finalize and release the petitioner's pensionary benefits, including pension and other dues, without any further delay;

¶18

2 / 4

¶19

ii. To kindly direct the Respondents to pay 18% interest on the withheld retiral benefits from the date of his retirement i.e. 31/07/2024 till the date of actual payment;

¶20

iii. To kindly award costs of the present petition in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents.

¶21

iv. To kindly pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, equitable, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to secure the ends of justice.”

¶22

2. Counsel for the respondent submits that during the pendency of this petition, petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards the gratuity and after determining the monthly pension of the petitioner as Rs. 47,950/-, arrears of the pension has also been paid.

¶23

3. The Submission of counsel for the State is not disputed by counsel for the petitioner, he, however, submits that in the writ petition bearing WPS No. 4002/2021 in Lok Adalat, respondents had given an undertaking to pay the retiral dues within a period of two months which has been held up. The award of the Lok Adalat is dated 14.12.2024 and, therefore, the respondents ought to have paid the petitioner all the retiral dues due to the petitioner by 15.02.2025, however, from the documents which is placed before this Court and copy of which is handed over to the petitioner, it is appearing that the payment is made on 09.02.2026. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for the interest of the intervening period from 15.02.2025 up to 09.02.2026. The petitioner has prayed for the interest @ 18%.

¶24

4. Counsel for the respondents submits that, delay cannot be attributed to the respondent authorities in the facts of the case. She further submits that if this Court accepts the prayer for award of interest then reasonable rate of interest be awarded.

¶25

3 / 4

¶26

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and also perused record of the writ petition.

¶27

6. Petitioner has filed the copy of the award passed in Lok Adalat. In WPS No. 4002 of 2021 dated 14.12.2024 in which the officer appeared on behalf of the department had made submission that the retiral dues which has been held up till date will be released within a period of two months. The relevant portion of the award is extracted below for ready reference.

¶28

The petitioner who appear in person, submits that he is not inclined to pursuing this petition by which he is questioning the order dated 26/03/2019 (Annexure P-6).

¶29

As the petitioner is not pursuing his petition, Mr. J. Manoharan, (A.D.P.O), Durg, C.G., who is present here on behalf of State, stated that the retiral dues which has been held up till date, will be released within a period of two months.

¶30

In the light of the submission made by the parties, this petition is disposed of as withdrawn.

¶31

The contesting parties to this petition have amicably settled/compromised the dispute. We have also found that the terms and conditions of compromise/settlement arrived at between the contesting parties are just, proper and legal and hence are acceptable. We accordingly accept the compromise/settlement, proposed by the parties.”

¶32

7. Thereafter, admittedly, the respondents have released the withheld retiral dues of the petitioner on or after 09.02.2026, which is much after the settlement and compromise arrived at between the parties, vide award dated 14.12.2024.

¶33

8. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is entitled for interest on the amount due from the date of his retirement till its realization. The said submission of counsel for the petitioner is

¶34

4 / 4

¶35

not acceptable because in the proceedings before the Lok Adalat in WPS No. 4002 of 2021 dated 14.12.2024, petitioner has accepted the payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner without interest within two months, and, therefore, in the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, considering the bank interest prevailing during that period on F.D., respondent withhold the money due to petitioner without any reasons, I am inclined to award interest @ 8% from 14.02.2025, till the date of its realization. Respondents shall compute the interest to be paid to petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order failing which the interest shall also carry further interest @ 8% on interest so computed, till its realization.

¶36

9. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

( Parth Prateem Sahu ) JUDGE

¶39

Saurabh

Haldhar Kumar Gangboir v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haldhar Kumar Gangboir 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Dongre Vs P. Dayanand, Secretary

Hemmani Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Chandrawanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shanti Bai Vs Smt. Janki Bai Sahu

Karunakar Mankar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satyanarayan Bharti Vs State of Chhattisgarh