Motilal Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Homes, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Sector -19, Block 03, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, Near Collectorate Building Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - The Superintendent Of Police Janjgir-Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - The Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Division Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

--- Respondent

¶16

WPS No. 5833 of 2023

¶17

Varun Lal Sahu S/o Shri Mukhiram Sahu, Aged About 63 Years R/o Q. No. 48, Kalika Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶18

--- Petitioner

¶19

versus

¶20

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Homes, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶21

2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Sector 19, Block 03, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶22

2

¶23

3 - The Superintendent Of Police Gorela Pendra Marvahi District Gorela Pendra Marvahi Chhattisgarh.

¶24

4 - The Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶25

--- Respondents

¶26

For Petitioners : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. Adv. General.

¶27

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶28

Order On Board

¶29

3-7-2026

¶30

1. Since the grievance raised by the petitioners in both the writ petitions is identical, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶31

2. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶32

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents and direct them to pay the pension regularly and also they may be directed to pay the interest of due pension since 31.07.2021 (in WPS No. 5830/2023) and since 31.3.2022 (in WPS No. 5833/2023) till the actual payment made by them, in the interest of justice.

¶33

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire relevant records from the respondents.

¶34

3

¶35

10.3 That, any other order or orders or direction or relief, just and fit in the circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted.”

¶36

3. The grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that, despite their retirement on 31.07.2021 and 31.03.2022, respectively, they were not paid pension and gratuity even after submitting several representations.

¶37

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, during the pendency of these writ petitions, petitioner Motilal Sharma was paid his entire retiral dues on 06.10.2023, i.e., after more than two years from the date of his retirement, whereas petitioner Varun Lal Sahu received his retiral dues on 09.10.2023, i.e., after more than one year from the date of his retirement. He, therefore, submits that since the principal grievance of the petitioners has now been redressed, these writ petitions may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay interest on the belated payment of the retiral benefits.

¶38

5. The respondents/State have filed their return. Learned State Counsel, referring to the pleadings in the return, submits that certain corrections were required in the official records relating to the date of joining of the petitioners, which were subsequently carried out. It is further submitted that there was correspondence between the office of the concerned Superintendent of Police and the Treasury regarding pay fixation, resulting in some delay in processing the pension papers and release of gratuity. According

¶39

4

¶40

to the respondents, the delay was bona fide and attributable to administrative procedures; therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to interest.

¶41

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶42

7. In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that pension and gratuity are no longer a bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement. They constitute valuable statutory rights and property in the hands of the retired employees, and any culpable delay in their settlement and disbursement must ordinarily be compensated by payment of interest until actual payment.

¶43

8. In the case of Uma Agrawal (Dr.) v. State of U.P. , reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

¶44

“The grant of pension is not a bounty, but the right of the retired Government employee and delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided, at all cost. The Petitioner retired on 30-41993, though the arrears were released only after Interim Order was passed by Supreme Court on 12-21996, in the Writ Petition. Respondents woke up only then and started sending messages to various places, where the Petitioner had worked. Such an exercise should have been started two years before the retirement”.

¶45

5

¶46

9. Likewise, in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari , reported in (2021) 11 SCC 543 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a case where, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the State Government of Andhra Pradesh had deferred payment of pension to different categories of pensioners, which was challenged before the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed payment of the deferred pension along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In appeal, while reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 6% per annum, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

¶47

“13. …... it is well settled that the payment of pension is for years of past service rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by the applicable rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees of the State.”

¶48

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in case of Dr. A.

¶49

Selvaraj vs. C.B.M. College and Others [(2022) 4 SCC 627] observed in para 10 and 12 as under :-

¶50

“10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we are of the opinion that as there was a delay in making the payment of retirement benefits and settling the dues for which the appellant employee is not at all responsible, he is entitled to the interest on the delayed payment. Even the Division Bench of the High Court has also observed in the

¶51

6

¶52

impugned judgment and order that the appellant is entitled to the interest on the delayed payment. However, there is an inter se dispute between the Secretary, Management and the Government as to who is responsible for the delay in making the payment to the appellant and therefore, he has been denied the interest on delayed payment though entitled to.

¶53

12 In that view of the matter, subject to the further final order that may be passed by the Government, the College/Management is first liable to pay the interest on the delayed payment of retirement dues subject to the final decision, which may be taken by the Government, after hearing the Management and the former Secretary. However, because of the inter se dispute between the Management, Secretary and the Government on who is responsible for the delay in making the payment and/or settling the dues, the retired employee should not be made to suffer for no fault of his.”

¶54

11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners retired on 31.07.2021 and 31.03.2022, respectively, whereas their retiral benefits were released only after more than two years and one year, respectively, from the dates of their retirement. Although the respondents have sought to justify the delay by citing procedural and administrative difficulties, such an explanation cannot be accepted, particularly when the matter relates to pensionary and retirement benefits. It was incumbent upon the respondents to

¶55

7

¶56

initiate the process for determination and release of pension and other retiral benefits sufficiently in advance.

¶57

12. It cannot be overemphasized that pension and other retiral benefits constitute the financial lifeline of a retired employee. Any undue delay in their release causes severe hardship and defeats the very purpose for which such benefits are intended. The petitioners cannot be deprived of compensation for the delay occasioned solely on account of administrative lapses attributable to the respondents. They are, therefore, entitled to interest on the delayed payment of their retiral dues.

¶58

13. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to interest on the delayed payment of their retiral benefits. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to pay interest to both the petitioners at the rate of 6% per annum on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity, calculated from the respective dates on which the amounts became due till the dates of their actual payment.

¶59

14. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶60

Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶61

pathak

¶62

AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.07.07 11:21:06 +0530

Motilal Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Motilal Sharma 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

Smt. Reema Yadu Vs Gautam Yadu

Smt. Savita Rajput Vs Shri Siddharth Komal Singh Pardeshi

Sukhan Say Sidar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. M.D Tendway Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Varun Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Shankar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh