Kanker, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPS No. 3709 of 2021 Reserved on 21.04.2025 Delivered on 08/07/2025 1 - A.R. Thakur S/o Gendram Thakur Aged About 67 Years Retired Additional Forest Divisional Officer, R/o Village And Post Kanker, Budhadev Marg, Bardebhata, Kanker, District South Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Admin Gazetted / Coordination) Aranya Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 3 - Registrar And Executive Director Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (Trade And Development) Co-Operative Federation Limited, Van-Dhan Bhawan, Sector 24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent 2 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 WPS No. 4752 of 2022 1 - A.R. Thakur S/o Gendram Thakur, Aged About 67 Years Retired Additional Forest Divisional Officer, R/o Village And Post Kanker, Budhadev Marg, Bardebhata, Kanker, District South Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Admin.Gazetted/coordination) Aranya Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 3 - Registrar And Executive Director Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (Trade And Development) Co-Operative Federation Limited, Van-Dhan Bhawan, Sector 24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State For Respondent No.3 : : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G.A. Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) CAV Order 1. Since common issue is involved in these two writ petitions, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. 3 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 2. Since the both the petition are connected and having similar facts of the case, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both the matter are clubbed together for final hearing the facts of the present matters are, in brief, is that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Conservator of Forest, Forest Circle Kanker, and concurrently served as Deputy Managing Director, District Cooperative Minor Forest Produce Federation, Kanker from March 2003 up to 07/08/2008. The petitioner subsequently retired from government service with effect from 31/07/2016. After the retirement, respondent no.1, vide letter dated 06/10/2016, issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner containing two charges. The charges pertained to alleged financial loss to the government by (i) failing to direct encashment of the bank guarantee furnished by the purchaser upon cancellation of the agreement, and (ii) accepting a bank guarantee valid only up to 27/04/2001, whereas the agreement stipulated validity up to 30/04/2001. 3. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said charge-sheet and raised a specific objection to the maintainability of departmental proceedings in the absence of any sanction or order under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 by the competent authority. In the meantime, the retiral dues of the petitioner were withheld, and the issuance of No-Dues/No-dues Enquiry Certificate was denied. 4 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 4. Despite the absence of a valid sanction, the enquiry proceeded and, after a detailed examination, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 05/07/2018. The report concluded that no loss had been caused to the government by the petitioner. While the charge of accepting a bank guarantee with an earlier expiry date was held to be partially proved, there was no finding of financial loss attributable to the petitioner. 5. The said enquiry report was forwarded by the Government to the Marketing Federation and the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (APCCF) for concurrence, both of whom agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. However, in an unexpected move, the respondent-State Government, without issuing any show-cause-notice under Rule 15 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘CCA Rules, 1966’), vide letter dated 28/03/2019, sought the opinion of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) regarding the proposed action on the partially proved charge. In response, the PCCF, after obtaining inputs from the Federation, communicated vide letter dated 24/10/2019 that no case for recovery or further action was made out against the petitioner. 5 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 6. Notwithstanding this, the State Government vide impugned order dated 25/01/2020 directed the initiation of a non-departmental enquiry against the petitioner under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Pursuant thereto, respondent no.3 issued a notice dated 27/05/2021 under Section 58-B of the said Act, despite the absence of any positive finding of loss or misconduct which could justify such action. 7. Challenging the said action, the petitioner filed WPS No. 3709/2021. This Court was pleased to granted interim order in favour of the petitioner, by order dated 19/07/2021, by restraining the respondents from passing any final order in the aforementioned non-departmental enquiry. 8. The petitioner has asserted that the continuation of the enquiry and the withholding of retiral dues are contrary to law, particularly in the absence of any order under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules and without any specific finding of loss. Despite a request dated 11/06/2021 for supply of relevant documents, no response was furnished by the respondents. Left with no alternative remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief. 9. Writ Petition (S) No.3709 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s) :- 6 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 “i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. ii. To kindly quash, the order dated 25/01/2020 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no.1. iii. To kindly set aside the notice dated 27/05/2021 (Annexure P/2) issued by the respondent no.3. iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 10. Further, Writ Petition (S) No.4753 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s) :- “i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. ii. To kindly direct the respondent department to release the retiral dues including full amount of pension and gratuity to the petitioner. iii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a retired Government servant, has approached this Court challenging the departmental proceedings initiated against him vide charge-sheet dated 16.11.2016, which was served upon him after his retirement. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 25.01.2020 (Annexure P/1), and 7 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 further seeks release of his full pensionary benefits. He goes on to submit that the principal contention of the petitioner is that the departmental proceedings have been initiated after his retirement without prior sanction of the competent authority, as mandated under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioner had raised this objection at the very outset in his reply dated 30.11.2016. However, the said objection was neither considered nor any sanction obtained. It is further contended that despite the illegality of the proceedings, the Enquiry Officer conducted a full-fledged enquiry and could not establish any charge of financial loss caused by the petitioner to the Government. On the issue of recovery, all three authorities i.e. the Enquiry Officer, the Marketing Federation, and the PCCF have recorded findings that no recovery was warranted from the petitioner. The petitioner also contends that the State Government, without providing an opportunity of hearing, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 25.01.2020, contrary to the provisions of Rule 15 of the CCA Rules. The petitioner has also challenged the initiation of proceedings under Section 58-B of the Cooperative Societies Act, which, according to him, cannot be invoked in the absence of a specific finding of financial loss to the Government; a finding admittedly not made out against the present petitioner herein. Therefore, he would further submit that 8 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 order dated 25.01.2020 (Annexure P/1) and notice dated 27.05.2021 (Annexure P/2) in WPS No.3709 of 2021 are liable to be set-aside and respondent authorities may be directed to release the retiral dues including full amount of pension and gratuity to the petitioner. 12. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the several judgments passed in the cases of B.M. Yagik Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 1 , B. P. Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2 , State of Chhattisgarh Vs. B. P. Tiwari 3 and lastly he relied upon the matter of Gous Ali Beg Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh 4 . 13. He further submits that the petitioner submits that the departmental proceedings initiated after his retirement in 2016 are void ab initio, as they were commenced without prior sanction under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The impugned order dated 25.01.2020 is also invalid, as it has not been duly authenticated in the name of the Governor, in violation of Article 166 of the Constitution. Further, proceedings under Section 58-B of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 are unsustainable in the absence of any finding of financial loss to 1 2022 SCC Online Chh 837 2 2023 SCC Online Chh 6035 3 2025 SCC Online Chh 707 4 2012 SCC Online Chh 144 9 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 public funds, which is a sine qua non for such action; no such finding exists in the present case. He goes on to submit that the petitioner has been subjected to prolonged, unlawful departmental action without due process, despite having retired nearly a decade ago. He therefore prays for quashing of all proceedings, release of full pensionary benefits, and just compensation for the harassment caused by the Respondent- State. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behlaf of Respondent No.6 submits that the show cause notice dated May 27, 2021, issued under Section 58-B of the Cooperative Society Act, 1960, is merely a preliminary step. This notice doesn't imply any liability or guilt on the petitioner's part but rather provides an opportunity for them to explain their position. He further submits that some Key points include in order to specify his submission:- • No Predetermined Decision: The respondent hasn't formed a final opinion or decided on adverse action, ensuring the petitioner a fair chance to demonstrate why concerns raised may not warrant further action. • Opportunity to be Heard: The petitioner will be heard before any final decision is made, affording them proper opportunity to present their case. 10 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 • No Cause of Action: Mere issuance of a show cause notice doesn't give rise to a cause of action warranting interference from the High Court, as per well-settled principles. 15. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse 5 , similarly in the matter of Ministry of Defence Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha 6 , and he further in the matter of Executive Engineer, Bihar State of Housing board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh 7 . 16. Learned counsel for the State submits that at the outset, the present writ petition is premature, not maintainable in law, and deserves to be dismissed in limine. He goes on to submit that the petitioner has approached this Court against a mere show-cause- notice dated 27.05.2021, issued under Section 58-B of the Cooperative Society Act, 1960, seeking explanation regarding certain lapses during his tenure as Assistant Conservator of Forests and Deputy Managing Director, District Cooperative Minor Forest Produce Federation, Kanker. It is submitted that the said show-cause-notice pertains to an agreement dated 12.02.2007 executed in favour of M/s Pradeep Kumar Chetvani 5 (2004) 3 SCC 440 6 (2012) 11 SCC 565 7 (1996) 1 SCC 327 11 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 with respect to Tendupatta Lots No. 199 (Bhanabeda) and 200 (Korar). The said firm defaulted in payment, leading to cancellation of the agreement. The petitioner, at the relevant time, failed to ensure proper encashment of the bank guarantee, and further allowed it to lapse by permitting the bank guarantee to remain valid only till 27.04.2008, instead of the requisite date 30.04.2008, thereby potentially causing financial loss to the department. It is most respectfully submitted that: The show- cause-notice is only an initiatory step, and no final order has been passed. It does not affect the civil rights of the petitioner at this stage. The issuance of the show-cause-notice is not tainted by arbitrariness, mala fide, or lack of jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana 8 held that a show-cause notice or charge-sheet is not liable to be challenged unless it is issued without jurisdiction or is wholly arbitrary — which is not the case here. He would further submit that the alternate remedy is also available to the petitioner, if he will aggrieved by any final order passed under Section 58-B of the Co-operative Society Act, 1960, has an efficacious alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 58-B(2) of the said Act before the competent Tribunal, to be filed within 30 days. In light of the above, it is respectfully submitted that this petition is premature, and there is no cause of action 8 (2006) 12 SCC 28 12 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 against the respondents at this stage. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State goes on to submits that the Petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy available and has not exhausted the same. So far as the stoppage of pension of the present petitioner is concerned, because of pendency of the departmental enquiry concerned with severe irregularity and loss caused by the petitioner to the department, the no-objection certificate (NOC) has not been issued in favour of the petitioner with regard to his pension and other consequential benefits. It is further contended that the power conferred under Section 58-B are wide and seek its implementation to defend the interest of the department, that is why the NOC has not been issued to the petitioner. Therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the present petition as premature and not maintainable, decline to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 at this stage; pass such other order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 18. Initiation of Proceedings under Section 58-B of the Cooperative Societies Act : The notice dated 27/05/2021 issued under Section 58-B of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act is unjustified, as no financial loss has been substantiated in the 13 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 enquiry report. The initiation of non-departmental proceedings in the absence of any established loss is therefore contrary to the principles of fairness and justice. For the sake of convenience Section 58-B is reproduced herein under:- “58 B. Procedure for making good, losses caused to a society:- (1)If in the course of an audit, inquiry, inspection or the winding up of a society or otherwise, it is found that any person, who is or was entrusted with organization or management of such society or any deceased, past or present chairman, secretary, member of Board of Directors, officer or employee of the society has made any payment contrary to the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder or bye-laws of a society or has caused any deficiency or loss by gross negligence or misconduct or has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to such society, the Registrar may on his own motion or on the application of the Board of Directors, liquidator or any creditor may make an order requiring such person or in the case legal of representative who inherits his estate, to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof, with interest at such rate or to pay contribution and costs or compensation to such extent as the Registrar may consider just and equitable : Provided that no order under this sub-section shall be made unless the person concerned is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matters. Provided further that the liability of a legal representative of the deceased shall be to the extent of the property of the deceased, which has come to the hands of such legal representative. (2) Any person aggrieved by the order made under sub-section (1), may within thirty days a deceased person, his 14 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 from the date of communication of the order to him, appeal to the Tribunal: Provided that in computing the period of limitation, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded (3) Any order made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of Section 85. (4) If the Registrar is satisfied on affidavit, enquiry or otherwise that any person with intent to delay or obstruct the enforcement of any order that may be made against him under this Section- (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property; or (b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the jurisdiction of the Registrar, he may, unless adequate security is furnished, direct the conditional attachment of the said property or such part thereof as he thinks necessary." 19. The Enquiry Officer, after a detailed enquiry, concluded that no financial loss had been caused to the government. Additionally, the Marketing Federation and PCCF concurred with the findings, stating that no recovery was warranted from the petitioner. The respondents' failure to accept these findings without issuing a show-cause notice under Rule 15 of the CCA Rules further undermines the legality of the subsequent actions. 20. Sanction under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules : The departmental proceedings were initiated after the petitioner’s retirement without obtaining prior sanction as required under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The absence of such sanction renders the proceedings void ab initio. 15 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 The petitioner raised this objection at the outset, and it was not addressed by the respondents. Hence, the proceedings are illegal. It is pertinent to mentioned Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, which is reproduced herein below:- “9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. (1) The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if, in any departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon employment after retirement: re- Provided that the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed : Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below [the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time]; (2) (a) The departmental proceedings [xxx], if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced, in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service: Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall submit a report regarding its findings to the Governor. (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was 16 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Council of Ministers; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings: (a) in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service in case it is proposed to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period; or (b) in which an order of recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service if it is proposed to order recovery from his pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government]. (3) No judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. (4) In the case of a Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental judicial or proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity as provided in [Rule 64], as the case may be, shall be sanctioned: [Provided that where pension has already been finally sanctioned to a Government servant prior to institution of departmental proceedings, the Governor may, by order in writing, withhold, with effect 17 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 from the date of institution of such departmental proceedings fifty per cent of the pension so sanctioned subject however that the pension payable after such withholding is not reduced to less than [the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time]: Provided further that where departmental proceedings have been instituted prior to the 25th October, 1978, the first proviso shall have effect as it for the words "with effect from the date of institution of such proceedings" the words "with effect from a date not later than thirty days from the date aforementioned," had been substituted: Provided also that- (a) If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of one year from the date of institution thereof, fifty per cent of the pension withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of one year; (b) If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of two years from the date of institution the entire amount of pension so withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of two years; and (c) If in the departmental proceedings final order is passed to withhold or withdraw the pension or any recovery is ordered, the order shall be deemed to take effect from the date of the institution of departmental proceedings and the amount, of pension since withheld shall be adjusted in terms of the final order subject to the limit specified in sub-rule (5) of Rule 43]. (5) Where the Government decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. (6) For the purpose of this rule- (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the 18 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court.” 21. In the present matter, the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2016. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was issued against him for initiation of departmental enquiry on 06.10.2016. In his reply to the charge-sheet, the petitioner specifically opposed the initiation of such enquiry, however, no consideration was given to his objections, and the departmental enquiry proceeded. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner were not found to be substantiated. Of the two charges, the first was found to be not proved, and in respect of the second charge, it was found to be partially proved. However, it was categorically stated in the enquiry report that no financial loss was caused to the State. This finding was duly accepted and concurred with by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (APCCF) as well as by the State Minor Forest Produce Co-operative Federation Limited. Despite this, an opinion was sought from the Principal Chief 19 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 Conservator of Forests (PCCF) regarding the partially proved charge. The PCCF, in his opinion, clearly stated that no case was made out for recovery or for taking any further action, even under Section 58-B of the Cooperative Societies Act. Thus, the very initiation of proceedings under Section 58-B is not in accordance with law. Unless there exists a clear, substantial, and glaring finding of misconduct, no such proceedings can be initiated against a retired employee. Once it has been conclusively held in the departmental enquiry that the charges were either not proved or partially proved without any resultant loss to the State, initiation of proceedings under Section 58-B amounts to nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and cannot be permitted to continue. In the enquiry report nothing was found against the petitioner to this effect that any recovery or any further proceeding is required to be initiated, consequently, the notices issued under Section 58- B itself is not maintainable. 22. The departmental proceedings were initiated after the petitioner’s retirement without obtaining prior sanction as required under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The absence of such sanction renders the proceedings void ab initio. The petitioner raised this objection at the outset, and it was not addressed by the respondents. Hence, the proceedings are illegal. 20 WPS No. 3709 of 2021 & WPS No. 4752 of 2022 23. So far as the the withholding of the petitioner’s pensionary benefits, despite the lack of any substantiated charges against him, is unlawful. The respondents' failure to provide the petitioner with a No-Dues Certificate or to release his dues is an arbitrary action that violates the petitioner’s rights under the law. 24.
Decision
In view of the above findings, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to relief. The actions of the respondents, including the order dated 25/01/2020 (Annexure P/1 in WPS No.3709/2021) and the notice dated 27/05/2021 (Annexure P/2 in WPS No.3709/2021), are liable to be and is hereby quashed. The respondents are further directed to release the petitioner’s pensionary benefits, including full pension and gratuity, without further delay. 25. Accordingly, Writ Petition (S) No. 3709 of 2021 and Writ Petition (S) No. 4753 of 2022 are allowed. The respondents are further directed to comply with this order and release the petitioner’s dues within a period of ‘60 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Certified Copy as per rules. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Saxena Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge