Durg (C.G.) v. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Head Office
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.24 16:40:43 +0530 2025:CGHC:18077-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 259 of 2025 Ravindra Kumar Kukreja S/o Late Shri Raghuveer Pal Kukreja Aged About 61 Years Retired Officer Scale- I.I.I., Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, R/o M.I.G. -521, Padmanabhpur, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Head Office - Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Through The Chairman, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Head Office, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble
Legal Reasoning
Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for respondent. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 2 13.09.2024 passed by Learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 4678/2015, whereby writ petition has been allowed and charge sheet has been quashed and withheld retiral benefit from 31.05.2014 has been ordered to be paid within 45 days, but interest has not been granted. Review petition filed claiming interest was also dismissed vide Review Petition No. 61/25 on 25/03/2025. Hence this writ appeal is being preferred for seeking direction for grant of interest on retiral benefit. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the appellant / writ petitioner was working as Officer Scale 1 under Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank and he stood retired on 31.05.2014. Just before 2 days of retirement, the writ petitioner was informed that a decision has been taken to initiate
Decision
departmental enquiry and the retiral dues of the writ petitioner was withheld. The charge sheet was issued on 26.05.2014 and further vide Annexure P-4 dated 17.08.2024, decision was taken to initiate departmental enquiry. The departmental enquiry was commenced only when the charge sheet was issued which in the present case, has been issued much after retirement and in the service condition of the Bank i.e. Regional Rural Bank (Officers and Employee) Service Regulations 2010, there is no provision for initiation of departmental enquiry after retirement and hence the charge sheet was issued without authority of law. The appellant immediately challenged the charge sheet and withholding of retiral 3 dues and to grant the withhold retiral dues with 18% interest and argued the same and the learned Single Judge, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no provision for initiation of departmental enquiry after retirement and quashed charge sheet and withheld retiral benefit from 31.05.2014 was ordered to be paid within 45 days. The appellant stood retired on 31.05.2014 and even after 10 years of retirement, dues were withheld on the basis of illegal departmental enquiry and finally it has been held that such enquiry was without any authority of law and hence the interest as prayed in the writ petition and also argued, may also have been granted, so that the retired employee may get justified relief otherwise he will be getting the dues of 2014 after 10 years without any interest then he will not get proper relief and will be at great loss if interest is not awarded. The review petition was also filed to consider the claim of interest mentioning that he has prayed for interest also as prayed in relief but same was also dismissed. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WP (S) No. 4678/2015 is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and hence is liable to be set-aside. The departmental enquiry is commenced only when the charge-sheet is issued which in the present case, has been issued much after retirement and in the service condition of the Bank i.e. Regional Rural Bank (Officers and Employee) Service Regulations 2010, there is no provision for 4 initiation of departmental enquiry after retirement and hence the charge sheet was issued without authority of law. The petitioner immediately challenged the charge-sheet and withholding of retiral dues and to grant the withhold retiral dues with 18% interest and argued the same and the learned Single Judge relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no provision for initiation of departmental enquiry after retirement and quashed charge-sheet and withheld retiral benefit from 31.05.2014 has been ordered to be paid within 45 days. The petitioner stood retired on 31.05.2014 and after 10 years of retirement, dues were withheld on the basis of illegal departmental enquiry which has been held that such enquiry was without any authority of law and hence the interest as prayed in the writ petition may also have been granted, so that the retiral employee may get justified relief otherwise he will be getting the dues of 2014 after 10 years without any interest then he will not get proper relief and will be great loss if interest is not awarded. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the matters of M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and others reported in 1995 SCC (5) 628 and Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2000 AIR SCW 2678. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that in pursuance of the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, all the retiral benefits 5 withheld from 31.05.2014 has been paid to the appellant. So far as interest of 18% on retiral dues is concerned, the learned Single Judge after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly dismissed the Review Petition No. 61/2025 filed by the review petitioner / appellant herein, in which, no interference is sought for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record, it transpires that learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein observing that though the decision to initiate / hold disciplinary proceeding has been taken by the respondent Bank against the writ petitioner on 29-5-2014, but the writ petitioner was allowed to superannuate on 31-5-2014 and only thereafter, formal charge-sheet has been drawn and issued on 26-7-2014 and thereafter, disciplinary proceeding was initiated / commenced on 17-8-2015 much after superannuation of the writ petitioner from the post which he was holding in the Bank. As such, it cannot be held for the purpose of Regulation 45(3) of the Regulations of 2010 that disciplinary proceeding had already been initiated against the writ petitioner on the date of superannuation which will continue by the reason of legal fiction "as if he was in service" employed in Regulation 45(3) and there is no enabling provision in the Regulations of 2010 6 which confers jurisdiction and authority to the respondent Bank to institute / initiate disciplinary proceeding against him, as no departmental enquiry was initiated on the date of superannuation attracting Regulation 45(3) of the Regulations of 2010. The learned Single Judge concluded that initiation of departmental proceedings after superannuation of the writ petitioner is per se illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority of law. Accordingly, the charge-sheet and subsequent proceedings instituting departmental proceeding against the petitioner were quashed. The respondent Bank was directed to pay all the retiral benefits to the writ petitioner within 45 days. 8. Now, coming to the grievance of the appellant that though the petition of the writ petitioner / appellant was allowed, but he has not been granted 18% interest on the withhold retiral dues. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in the matter of “Hari Prakash Beohar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another” whereby, this Court allowed the writ appeal by observing as follows:- “10. The Supreme Court in the matter of M.R.Gupta (supra) held as under:- "5. Having heard both sides, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has missed the real point and overlooked the crux of the matter. The appellant's grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules, was the assertion of a continuing wrong against him 7 which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid a salary which was not computed in accordance with the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt true that if the appellant's claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. In other words, the appellant's claim, if any, for recovery of arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay which has become time barred would not be recoverable, but he would be entitled to proper fixation of his pay in accordance with rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits his claim is justified. Similarly, any other consequential relief claimed by him, such as, promotion etc. would also be subject to the dance of laches etc. to disentitle him to those reliefs. The pay fixation can be made only on the basis of the situation existing on 1.8.1978 without taking into account any other consequential relief which may be barred by his laches and the bar of limitation. It is to this limited extent of proper pay fixation the application cannot be treated as time barred since it is based on a recurring cause of action." 11. Further, in the matter of Vijay L. Mehrotra (supra) the Supreme Court held as under:- 8 "3. In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement. 4. In this case, there is absolutely no reason for justification for not making the payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from the date of her retirement, i.e., 31st August, 1997 till, the date of payments." 12. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner retires on 31.07.2012. Initially some amount of leave encashment was paid. On 23.02.2024 rest of the amount of leave encashment was paid. The writ petition was held in the month of April, 2024 claiming interest on the said amount. Representations were made by the petitioner on 05.10.2023 (Annexure P/4) and 01.03.2024 (Annexure P/6). It does not appear that from 2012 i.e. year of retirement of the petitioner till 2023, the petitioner made any effort to assert his right to get the leave encashment and interest on it. After a lapse of one year from payment of leave encashment the writ petition was filed. It appears that petitioner was not vigilant about his right to claim leave encashment and interest on it. The maxim: "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt" 9 which means that law assists those who are vigilant with their rights and not those that sleep thereupon, is very much applicable in this case. The petitioner does not appear to be vigilant about his right for all these years. However at the same time the respondent No.2 also ought to have paid the leave encashment to the petitioner within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, in order to strike the balance between the parties and to serve the case of justice it would be appropriate to grant interest for a reasonable period. Therefore, this Court directs the respondent No.2 to pay interest @ 6% to the petitioner for two years preceding the date of judgment of leave encashment i.e. 23.02.2024. Meaning thereby petitioner is entitled to interest @ 6% from 24.02.2022 to 23.02.2024 on the amount of leave encashment. 13. It transpires from the record that the appellant was firstly served with the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and after abolition of the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, his services merged in the Chhattisgarh Industrial Development Corporation and thereafter, he served with respondent No.2 and ultimately, during the service under respondent No.2, the appellant retired from service on 31.07.2012, however, he got the payment of leave encashment for the period of 225 days (excluding the period of 15 days) by order dated 23.02.2024, for which he is not at fault and it is the fault of respondent No.2. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get interest for about 12 years delayed in payment of leave encashment. 14. In the instant case, there is absolutely no reason or justification given by respondent No.2 in its reply 10 before learned Single Judge for not making the payment of leave encashment to the appellant from the date of his retirement, for which he is entitled. 15. For the foregoing reasons and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra (supra), we direct respondent No.2 to pay to the appellant simple interest on leave encashment at the rate of 18% with effect from the date of his retirement i.e. 31.07.2012 till the date of actual payment, within a period of 12 weeks from today. Order accordingly. 16. The writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is modified to the above extent. No cost(s).” 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay L. Mehrotra (Supra) and this Court in the matter of Hari Prakash Beohar (supra), we direct the respondent to pay the appellant 18% simple interest on the withhold retiral dues of the appellant w.e.f. 31.05.2014 till date, within a period of 12 weeks from today. Order accordingly. 11. The writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the above extent. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet