Smt. Archana Kose Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:762

¶3

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRA JAT

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 9416 of 2023

¶7

1 - Smt. Archana Kose W/o Avinesh Kose Aged About 65 Years Retired Supervisor At Integrated Child And Development Project Bagbahara, District Mahasamund C.G. R/o Bagbahara, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Integrated Child And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Joint Director Treasury And Pension Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - District Treasury Officer Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - District Program Officer Integrated Child And Development Project, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

2

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer.

¶17

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

06/01/2026

¶20

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶21

“(1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant interest on pension and gratuity to the tune of 18% penal interest from the date of retirement till the date of payment within stipulated time, in the interest of justice.”

¶22

Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was working as a Supervisor and retired on 30.06.2020, however, even after lapse of more than one year from the date of retirement, neither pension nor gratuity, nor even provisional pension, was released to her, rendering her survival almost impossible. That after retirement, a notice dated 15.01.2021 was issued seeking adjustment of an amount of Rs. 3,60,000/-, to which the petitioner duly replied stating that the said amount along with bill vouchers had already been handed over to her superior, the then Supervisor Rajesh Kshirsagar, during the year 2017–18 itself, and that raising such demand after retirement was improper. Thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.S. No. 4202/2021, wherein this Hon’ble Court, by order dated 12.08.2021, directed the

¶23

3

¶24

respondents to finalize and release the pension and gratuity at the earliest after retaining Rs. 3,00,000/- and further directed that the claim relating to Rs. 3,60,000/- be considered and decided within four weeks. The petitioner immediately informed the department about the said order yet despite the clear directions of this Hon’ble Court, no steps were taken to grant pensionary benefits, nor was anticipatory/provisional pension sanctioned. Consequently, the petitioner filed Contempt Case (C) No. 540/2022 on 28.04.2022, pursuant to which notices were issued, and thereafter, by letter dated 13.07.2022, directions were issued to prepare papers only for anticipatory pension and not for final pension. Subsequently, anticipatory pension up to 30.06.2022 was granted on 20.07.2022, and the same was intimated by the petitioner to the department vide letter dated 21.07.2022. Ultimately, the pension and gratuity were finalized only in April 2023 and actually released in May 2023, and therefore the petitioner is entitled to interest from the date of retirement till the actual date of payment of pensionary benefits. Thus, the petitioner was deprived of her lawful pension and gratuity for an inordinate period despite clear orders of this Hon’ble Court, without any justifiable reason, entitling her to penal interest, particularly in view of the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that pension and gratuity are not a bounty but a valuable right of an employee and any delay in payment thereof must be compensated by grant of penal interest.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the

¶26

4

¶27

respondents is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and discriminatory, and therefore not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further contended that although the petitioner stood retired long back, her pension and gratuity were finalized only in the month of April 2023 and actually disbursed in May 2023, and as such, the petitioner is legally entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits from the date of her retirement till the actual date of payment. Learned counsel further submits that despite specific orders passed by the Hon’ble Court, the petitioner was deprived of her rightful pension and gratuity without any justifiable reason, thereby causing grave hardship to her, and consequently, she is also entitled to penal interest on account of the unjustified and prolonged delay attributable to the respondents.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the retiral dues of the petitioner could not be finalized immediately after retirement solely due to the petitioner’s own failure to adjust the advance amount, despite being fully aware of the outstanding liability incurred during service. He further submits that upon retirement, the petitioner’s case was promptly processed and, after due scrutiny of the relevant records and documents, all admissible retiral benefits were duly released. Although there was a delay in finalizing the pension and gratuity, the same occurred exclusively on account of the petitioner’s non-cooperation, as she failed—despite notices and directions—to produce documentary proof, bills, or vouchers pertaining to expenditure allegedly

¶29

5

¶30

incurred for conducting Sanskar Training, leaving an unrecovered advance of Rs. 3,60,000/- outstanding against her. Consequently, the respondents cannot be fastened with liability for payment of interest on the delayed disbursement. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with law, without any illegality or infirmity, and therefore the petition, being devoid of merit and substance, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.

¶31

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

¶32

The contention of the respondent/State that the petitioner has failed to establish any valid ground is devoid of substance in view of the admitted facts of exoneration and delayed disbursement. The settled position of law is that when retiral dues are withheld without any justifiable reason and are released after an unreasonable delay, the employee is entitled to interest as compensation for the deprivation of timely payment. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of his retiral dues. However, having regard to the equities of the case, interest at the rate of 9% per annum would meet the ends of justice.

¶33

The respondent authorities are directed to grant and disburse interest to the petitioner at the rate of 9% per annum on the delayed payment of his retiral dues, for the period of delay, within

¶34

6

¶35

a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The representation submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be treated as allowed to the aforesaid extent. In case the aforesaid amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the respondent authorities shall be liable to comply with the order forthwith, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶36

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶39

Raghu Jat

Smt. Archana Kose v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Archana Kose 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

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Kunti Gop

Vishnu Kumar Modi Vs National Insurance Company Limited

Mulchand Thakur Vs National Mineral Development Corporation (Nmdc)

Ku. Masoom Rathod Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Purana Bai

Mrs. B. Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh