R. N. GUPTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition was three folds: First was for an action to be taken against the erring officers of the respondents for having delayed payment of retiral dues to the petitioner. The ground for initiating action was that the petitioner was illegally and wrongly subjected to departmental enquiry immediately after his retirement. Second was for payment of interest on the belated release of leave encashment as also gratuity amount. The third relief was for compensation for the mental agony and harassment the petitioner faced.

(2.) The facts relevant for adjudication of the present dispute are that the petitioner stood retired from the post of Engineer-in-Chief on 31.03.2009. Subsequent to his retirement, according to the petitioner himself, he was promptly released the GPF but he was not released his leave encashment and gratuity amount that he was entitled for. The leave encashment was released to the petitioner only on 27.06.2013 and the gratuity amount was released on 30.10.2013. The two payments were released to the petitioner after a period of more than 4 years from the date of his retirement from service. According to the petitioner, he has been deprived of this amount for no reason or no fault on his part and therefore, he should be suitably compensated by paying interest on the said amount.

(3.) The second grievance of the petitioner was that he stood retired on 31st March, 2009. After demitting Office, the respondents issued a letter in the evening of 31st March, 2009 intimating the petitioner that the Department intends to proceed departmentally against him though no charge sheet was issued. The charge sheet was finally issued only on 25.04.2009 i.e. after about one month from the date of his superannuation. Meanwhile, the petitioner had questioned the issuance of charge sheet in WPS No. 2527 of 2009 which stood disposed of on 16.11.2009 with a direction that the respondents would consider and hear the petitioner before proceeding further. Meanwhile, the departmental enquiry was conducted and it proceeded but ultimately the respondents themselves realized their mistake of having wrongly proceeded against the petitioner in a departmental proceeding. Subsequently, the respondents issued an order on 06.02.2013 (Annexure P-25) wherein they have said that the entire action was baseless and without authority of law and decided to drop the departmental enquiry without any further action.