State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ratindra Bose

Heard Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellants / State. Also heard Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2.

I.A. No. 01 of 2024, is an application for condonation of delay of delay of 343 days in filing the instant appeal.

On due consideration, the reasons mentioned in the application appear to be satisfactory, I.A. No. 01 of 2024 is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4911 of 2012 (Ratindra Bose vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby, the writ petition filed by writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge.

Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein was appointed as Physical Training Instructor (PTI) vide order dated 09.11.1977 on temporary basis. Subsequently, he was awarded UGC pay scale w.e.f. 24.05.2004 by the Department of Medical Education, erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and the same was affirmed by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 12.01.2005. Later on, the petitioner’s post was transformed into the post of Sports Officer vide order dated 22.08.2008. The further case of the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein is that an unknown compliant regarding his false appointment in the service was lodged against the him, thereafter, he submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 01.10.2010 with 3 months prior notice to the Department. The writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein informed the respondent No.3 regarding completion of 3 months period in reference to his application for voluntary retirement vide letter dated 31.12.2010 and requested for payment of pension and gratuity and even filed representations in this behalf, but neither he was given pension and gratuity nor his representations were decided. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein filed WPS No.4911 of 2012, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.02.2023, directing the respondents to finalize his retiral/pensionary dues within a period of 3 months and also to pay arrears of other terminal/pensionary dues and regular pension by treating the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 as retired from service voluntarily w.e.f. 31.12.2010. It has been further directed that the respondents shall release the actual pension also in favour of the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.02.2023. Since the writ petitioner/ respondent No.1 is not responsible for the delayed payment of the retiral dues, he would be entitled to the interest on the delayed payment. Accordingly, all the retiral dues payable to the writ petitioner/ respondent No.1 herein shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of retirement i.e. 31.12.2010 till final payment. Being aggrieved by the interest part of the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants / State have preferred this present appeal.

Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants / State submits that the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 has been passed without considering the relevant documents and material pertaining to the case of the respondent No.1, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside so far as the direction for payment of interest @ 6% p.a. is concerned. He further submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that it is an undisputed fact that the departmental enquiry in respect of the very appointment and promotion of the respondent No.1 was pending against him on the date of his retirement, therefore, under Rule 9(4) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which deals with the right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension, the appellants have rightly withheld the retiral dues of the respondent No.1. Thus, the appellants cannot be held liable for payment of interest upon delayed payment of retiral dues to the respondent No. 1 herein. He also submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that once a person has been appointed or engaged in service and he was allowed to continue by treating him as a regular employee by providing all the service benefits and he was allowed to be retired from service then he would be treated as retired employee and would be entitled for retiral dues, but, the same is not the case of respondent no. 1 as undisputedly the appointment of the respondent no. 1 was purely on temporary basis for a period of 3 months subject to approval of Director, Health Services which was further extended for further 3 months period, but, no such approval was ever accorded by the Director, Health Services on the appointment of the respondent no. 1 and these facts were brought to the authority in the inquiry conducted upon complaint being received before the respondent No. 1 submitted application for voluntary retirement from service, however, all admissible retiral dues have already been paid to him. Hence, under such circumstances, the appellants are not at all liable for payment of interest to the respondent No. 1 herein.

He later submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the respondent No.1 after submitting the application for voluntary retirement on 01.10.2010 has not attended the office, when a complaint was made against him in respect to his appointment, promotion granted dehors the rules and taking the benefit of UGC pay scale, the respondent No. 1 was able to manage an order in his favour but when the matter was opened on account of complaint, an inquiry was conducted, which revealed the whole irregularities in appointment of the respondent No.1, then on apprehension that finally the action would be taken against him both on criminal and civil on account of misrepresentation and fraud committed by him, the respondent No.1 hurriedly tendered an application for voluntary retirement and thereafter approached this Hon'ble Court stating that the whole mistake is done on the part of the department and not of himself and thus, the decision in respect of the retiral dues have not been considered. However, later on, all admissible retiral dues have duly been paid to him. Under these circumstances, the appellants cannot be fastened with the liability of payment of interest to the respondent no. 1 on delayed payment of retiral dues.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein / writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record it transpires that till filing of VRS application by the respondent No.1, no action was taken by the appellants against him. The notesheet further discloses that these proceedings were initiated after filing of VRS application and the appellants did not grant pension and retiral dues to the respondent No.1. The appellants have not denied this fact that earlier the respondent No.1 was granted UGC pay scale and other benefits as per orders of erstwhile M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Madha Pradesh. It also transpires that in the present case , the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 has already completed his 20 years qualifying service and after completion of the said period, he filed application for voluntary retirement. True it is that some unknown complaint was filed against him and the same may have some substance in it, but the fact remains that the action was required to be proposed or taken within the expiry of notice period of 3 months and after expiry of the said period, the petitioner was proposed to be retired from service i.e. on 31.12.2010 and even thereafter the action was proposed and his pension and retiral dues were retained, which should not have been done. Even otherwise, it is the volition and choice of the government servant to seek voluntary retirement after completion of 20 years by giving three months prior notice and the same does not require any order or acceptance by the appointing authority. Thus, it is clear that the delay in payment of retiral dues has been occurred on the part of the appellants.

Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No costs.