1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:
“(i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and to quash/set-aside the order dated 04.09.2015 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Appellate Authority cum Chairman, C.G. State Warehousing Corporation, Raipur, in Appeal Case No. 01/2015 and also the order dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation.
(ii) The Hon'ble court further be pleased to grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner including the amount recovered under the order of recovery dated 16.03.2012.
(iii) The Hon'ble Court further be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the interest at the rate of 8% per annum upon the amount of retiral dues of the petitioner i.e. Rs. 9,76,744/- from 30.04.2008 upto 13.02.2015 which comes about Rs. 5,46,976/-.
(iv) The Hon'ble Court further be pleased to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 4500/- recovered from his salary towards loss due to shortage of Sugar during the tenure at Tilda, along with accrued interest from the dated of its recovery till the refund.
(v) The Hon'ble Court further kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case of the petitioner for kind perusal.
(vi) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner.”
2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Technical Assistant in the M.P. State Warehousing Corporation functioning in the erst while State of Madhya Pradesh. After bifurcation of the State, the services of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Senior Assistant Manager and after about 34 years of continuous and unblemished service, he has superannuated on 30.04.2008 and retired from the post of Senior Assistant Manager. After his retirement, the retiral dues of the petitioner i.e. Provident Fund, Gratuity, Group Insurance etc. have not been paid to him by the respondent department.
3. Upon petitioner's representation, the respondent department replied that during the tenure of the petitioner, the respondent Corporation has suffered a loss of Rs. 46,29,030/- and payment of retiral dues is not possible till the write-off of the accounts in the joint meeting with the depositor Food Corporation of India and the respondent Corporation is held. Since, the retiral dues of the petitioner has not been paid to him, on 06.02.2012, he filed a Writ Petition (S) No. 643/2012 before this Hon'ble Court for direction to the respondents to pay his retiral dues along with interest. In the writ petition, after appearance of the respondents, return has been filed by them in which it has been averred that on 17/18.02.2012, the joint meeting of FCI and the respondent Corporation was held and it was found that during the tenure of the petitioner at Chittod, a loss of shortage occurred amounting to Rs. 1,44,341/- and the petitioner being branch manager of Chittod branch, is the ware-houseman and he is responsible for the loss, hence, the amount of Rs. 1,44,341/- was directed to be recovered vide order dated 16.03.2012 from the petitioner from his retiral dues.
4. Before passing the order dated 16.03.2012, there was no allegation of negligence, no any show-cause notice, no any departmental inquiry was conducted and even in the joint meeting with the FCI and the respondent department, the petitioner was not given any notice and opportunity to hear on the issue. Without hearing the petitioner and affording opportunity of hearing, the officers present in the joint meeting, held that the petitioner is at fault of loss to the tune of Rs. 1,44,341/- and liability has been fixed upon the petitioner and order of recovery has been passed. It is also respectfully submitted that there is so many intervening cause for loss like dryness, breakage, transportation loss, mouse-eating etc. All the proceeding have been held in absence of the petitioner and he has been held liable for the loss. During the tenure of the petitioner, there is no loss and the shortage, if any, is within its permissible limit shown in the departmental manual. After return filed by the respondent in the writ petition, it appears that since, recovery of Rs. 1,44,341/- was made by the respondent Corporation, but the total retiral dues was about Rs. 10,00,000/-, the petitioner proposed that after adjustment of Rs. 1,44,341/-out of the total amount of retiral dues of the petitioner, the balance amount may be paid to the petitioner by the respondent Corporation. The respondent have also agreed to the proposal of the petitioner and considering the rival claims of the parties, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of on 12.04.2013. The liberty to challenge the order of recovery dated 16.03.2012 in appropriate proceedings is also given to the petitioner.
5. After the order dated 12.04.2013, the respondents Corporation has filed a Review Petition No. 156/2013 before this Hon'ble Court for reviewing of the order dated 12.04.2013 on the ground that some more instances were loss was caused to the respondent Corporation during posting of the petitioner at Chittod and Gudhiyari and the same are under enquiry. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case particularly considering the fact that only the recovery order dated 16.03.2013 is passed against the petitioner till that date, the review petition filed by the respondent Corporation is dismissed on 23.01.2015.
6. In the month of February 2015, the retiral dues of the petitioner is paid by the respondent Corporation except the amount under recovery order dated 16.03.2012 i.e. Rs. 1,44,341/-which is still lying with them. On 13.03.2015, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority cum Chairman, C.G. State Ware Housing Corporation, Raipur, against the recovery of Rs. 1,44,341/- by order dated 16.03.2012. In the appeal, the petitioner has said that recovery order has been passed without hearing him and in absence of him, the proceedings of write-off have been done. It has also been averred that due to pendency of Writ Petition and Review Petition before Hon'ble High Court, the appeal could not be filed earlier and after passing of the order in Review Petition, the appeal is filed.
7. After hearing the petitioner in the appeal, the Appellate Authority cum Chairman, CG State Ware Housing Corporation, Raipur, has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on 04.09.2015 on the ground that under Regulation 30 of Chapter IV of the Staff Regulation, 1962, the appeal is to be preferred within 30 days of the service of the punishment order and the petitioner has filed the appeal beyond the period of limitation. On 13.03.2015, the petitioner has moved another application to the Managing Director, CG State Ware housing Corporation for payment of interest on the amount of Rs. 9,76,744/- which is his retiral dues from the period of 30.04.2008 (the date of his retirement) up to 13.02.2015 (the date in which the retiral dues are paid) and also for refund of Rs. 4500/- which was deducted from his salary while he was posted at Tilda. In between the period of 30.04.2008 to 13.02.2015, the amount of retiral dues of the petitioner was lying with the respondent without any reason and the same is paid after order passed by this Hon'ble Court. On 13.05.2015, the petitioner has given a reminder application for grant of interest over the amount of his retiral dues and refund of Rs. 4500/-, but till date, neither interest has been paid to the petitioner on his retiral dues, nor the amount of Rs. 4500/- is refunded by the respondent Corporation.
8. The respondent department has recovered a sum of Rs. 750/-per month for 6 months on account of loss of Sugar storage while his posting at Tilda, in the year 1989-90. Vide letter dated 25.09.2006, the petitioner was exonerated from the recovery of Rs. 7004-42 but the amount already recovered @ 750/- per month for 6 months, have not been refunded to him despite representation given by him. Hence this petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are erroneous and liable to be quashed/set-aside. There is no show-cause notice, no charge-sheet, no departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner. Despite that, he is held liable for the loss of the respondent department whereas there is no loss during the tenure of the petitioner. The loss, if any, which is said to have been caused during the tenure of the petitioner, is within the permissible limit as per the department's manual. Therefore, the order of recovery of Rs. 1,44,341/- from the petitioner's retiral dues is erroneous and the same is liable to be quashed/set-aside. The whole proceedings of Write-off between the FCI and the respondent Corporation have been done in absence of the petitioner. Before passing of any order of recovery and/or imposing any punishment, he has not been heard and no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner. All the exercise has been done behind the back of the petitioner. He has also not been called in the joint meeting with the FCI and the respondent Corporation to explain the cause of shortage, if any.
10. The Appellate authority should have consider that on 16.03.2012, when the order of recovery is passed, the Writ Petition No. 643/2012 was pending and the order of recovery dated 16.03.2012 was came into knowledge of the petitioner only when the return was filed in the Writ Petition. After disposal of the Writ Petition on 12.04.2013, the respondents have filed a Review Petition before this Court which is dismissed on 23.01.2015. While disposing of the Writ Petition, liberty was given to the petitioner to challenge the order of recovery in an appropriate proceeding. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed appeal after disposal of the review petition, but the Appellate Authority did not consider the case of the petitioner and the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay, which is liable to be quashed/ set-aside. The amount of Rs. 4500/- has also not been refunded to the petitioner, which was deducted from his salary despite the order of his exoneration from liability to cause shortage during his tenure at Tilda. The respondent Corporation had not paid the retiral dues of the petitioner till the month of February 2015 from the date of is retirement. Without there being any recovery order, any liability, any notice, any departmental inquiry, the respondent Corporation was withheld that amount of the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled for interest from the date of his retirement till the date of its payment i.e. 13.02.2015, at the rate as applicable to the department and the State Government in the amount of Provident Fund etc.
11. As per the petitioner's calculation, the amount of the interest on the amount of Rs. 9,76,744/- from 30.04.2008 to 13.02.2015 @ 8% per annum comes about 5,46,976/- for which he is entitled and the same is still lying with the petitioner. Due to arbitrarily withholding of the amount, the petitioner suffered economically as well as mentally. Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.09.2015 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure P/4) is liable to be set-aside.
12. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “State of M.P. and others v. Ramji Das Agarwal”, reported in 2013 (1) M.P.L.J. 53, order dated 15.02.2018, passed by this Court in WPS No. 463/2017 (Angad Prasad Vishwakarma v. The State of Chhattisgarh and others), order dated 26.04.2018 passed by this Court in WPS No. 7164/2009 (L.L. Shivhare v. C.G. State Warehousing Corporation & another) and order dated 11.12.2019 passed by this Court in WPS No. 3601/2018 (Noharlal Koshewada v. The Accountant General & others) and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Dr. A. Selvaraj v. C.B.M. College and others” reported in (2022) 4 SCC 627.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner submits that during the petitioner's tenure at different branches between period 1998 to 2007 as Branch Manager, the storage loss claims were pending which remained unsettled by the depositor FCI. The petitioner filed WPS No. 643/2012 and this Court direct the Corporation to release the retiral dues. The petitioner was held responsible for a storage loss worth Rs.1,44,341/- during tenure as Branch Manager at Chittod in a joint meeting held between the answering respondent and the FCI and the answering respondent recovered an amount of Rs.1,44,341/- vide recovery order dated 16.03.2012. This Court on 12.04.2013 directed the answering respondent to adjust the recoverable amount and release the balance amount due to the petitioner as retiral dues without any further loss of time. The respondent filed a review petition seeking review of the order dated 12.04.2013 and this Court directed the respondent to pay the balance amount of retiral dues after adjusting the amount of recovery. The respondent prayed that apart from the recovery of Rs.1,44,341/- against the petitioner, there are some more instances where loss was caused during the period of posting of the petitioner at Gudhiyari and Chittod during the period 1998-1999 to 2000, 01.09.2006 to 15.11.2006 and during the year 2007 respectively. The review petition was dismissed and the Corporation in compliance of the order dated 12.04.2013 released the balance amount due to the petitioner after deducting the recovery amount of Rs.1,44,341/-as ordered by this Court. Recovery to the tune of Rs.1,44,341/-was fixed on the petitioner in joint meeting held with the depositor FCI on account of storage losses incurred at Chittod when the petitioner was acting as a Branch Manager was done in compliance to the order of this Court.
14. The petitioner in the promissory note also mentioned the receipt of the balance retiral dues and also gave in writing to the Corporation to recover any other fund on him in future. The decision taken by the Appellate Authority cum Chairman, C.G. State Warehousing Corporation is just and proper and hence there is no illegality at all in such decision of Chairman by which the concerned has taken a decision to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner, therefore the respondents have recovered the amount from petitioner as per order of this Court. This Court directed the Corporation to pay balance amount of retiral dues of the petitioner after adjusting the amount of recovery i.e. Rs. 1,44,341/- without any mention of the interest. With regard to the payment of Rs.4500/- deducted from the salary of the petitioner when he was posted at Tilda, no relief was granted by the competent Court and demanding the stated amount again is illegal and improper. This Court had not granted any relief earlier, thus, the relief sought for by the petitioner regarding interest and balance payment of Rs. 4500/- is without any basis and improper, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. I have heard the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
16. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner was working with the respondent Department and he was retired from service w.e.f. 30.04.2008.
17. In previous writ petition i.e. WPS No. 643/2012, this Court observed in order dated 12.04.2013 as under:
“Heard.
Short grievance of the petitioner is that the retiral dues of the petitioner to which he is entitled under the terms and conditions of service, are not being paid. He submits that order of recovery of Rs.1,44,341/- was issued. The respondents may have adjusted that amount from dues payable to the petitioner but the balance amount ought to be paid. He submits that the withholding of the entire amount, in the name of recovery is arbitrary and illegal. He submits that the respondents may adjust that amount of recovery and balance amount should be paid to him.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that claim of the petitioner with regard to release of balance amount after adjusting amount of recovery under order dated 16.3.2012 shall be considered and balance amount shall be released at the earliest.
In view of the above, the petition is finally disposed off.
Respondents should pay balance amount after adjusting the amount of recovery immediately without further loss of time.
It is clarified that the petitioner reserves his liberty to challenge the order of recovery in appropriate proceedings.”
18. Against the order dated 12.04.2013, the respondents filed a review petition No. 156/2013 and this Court observed in operative para as under:
“When this Court passed an order dated 12.04.2013, undisputedly, only one recovery order was in existence under which recovery of Rs.1,44,341/- was ordered. As the writ petitioner had retired in the year 2008 and no payments towards retiral dues were paid to him, this Court passed the order directing payment of balance amount after adjusting of Rs.1,44,341/-. By that time, there was no other order of recovery passed against the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the Corporation could not point out to this Court any provision having force of law entitling the Corporation to withhold retiral dues only on the ground of pendency of a preliminary enquiry without there being any charge-sheet issued to the employee.
In view of the above, I do not find any ground to review the order dated 12.04.2013. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.”
19. This Court while deciding the issue in the matter of “L.L. Shivhare” (supra) held in para 7 & 8 as under:
“7. Another aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the alleged termite treatment in the respondent corporation was carried out in the year 2004. The petitioner in the instant case has retired from the respondents on 31/07/2007 That means there was about 3 years period between the date of the alleged termite treatment carried out and the date of retirement of the petitioner.
8. No proper explanation has been provided by the respondents as to why any proceedings could not be initiated while the petitioner was working with the respondents.”
20. This Court in the case of “Angad Prasad Vishwakarma” (supra) deciding the matter held in para 20 & 21 as under:
“20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is quite imperative that under the provisions of the Constitution, the Acts and rules made thereunder, it is not only the duty of the State authorities but also their constitutional obligation to extend the retiral dues of the retired Government servants right in time and in the manner indicated under the legislative rules to achieve the goal set up under the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution of India, as the right of the Government servant to get retiral dues is the right to property that cannot be taken away only except in accordance with law and it is violation of human rights and violation of human rights is Court of Chhattisgarh an act against the humanity. Non- payment of retiral dues/GPF amount for last 17 years is not only purely unconstitutional but also plainly arbitrary and deserves to be condemned in strongest words. The act of the public functionary in such a way amounts to harassment of the petitioner/retired Government servant and is totally unacceptable.
21. Therefore, it is directed that the petitioner will be entitled for interest @ 8% per annum on the said amount of GPF from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner will also be entitled to a cost of ₹50,000/-. The amount shall be paid to the petitioner by the respondents and the State Government is at liberty to recover the said amount from the officer concerned who is responsible for such delay in paying the retiral dues, after making due enquiry in accordance with law.”
21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of “Dr. A. Selvaraj” (supra) deciding the issue held in para 13 as under:
“13. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order¹ passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and that of the learned Single Judge denying the interest on delayed payment of retirement benefits to the appellant is hereby quashed and set aside. The Management/ Trustees/College are hereby directed to pay the interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits to the appellant, from the date of retirement till the actual payment was made, subject to the final decision that may be taken by the Government on the objections to the enquiry report that may be filed by the former Secretary and/or the College and it will be open for the College/Management/Trustees to recover the sane from the person, who, ultimately is held to be responsible for the delay.”
22. In the light of above discussion, in this case also it is clear that the petitioner was retired on 30.04.2008 and recovery was made against the petitioner on 16.03.2012, therefore, this order is not sustainable.
23. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure P/4) and order dated 04.09.2015 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Appellate Authority is set-aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner with simple interest of 6% per annum.
24. With the aforesaid observations and directions the present writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
