2025:CGHC:56512-DB Digitally NAFR signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMADate:

2025.11.21

10:27:00 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 841 of 2025 Krishna Shankar Pradhan S/o Shri B.R. Pradhan Aged About 47 Years (Now Aged About 55 Years), R/o Yadunadan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

...Appellant(s)

versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Accommodation And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar (C.G.)

2. The Under Secretary Accommodation And Environment Department, State Of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, (C.G.)

3. The Commissioner Durg Division, District- Durg (C.G.)

4. The Joint Director Nagar And Gram Nivesh, Regional Office, Durg (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge

20.11.2025

1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 6084 of 2017, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner.

2. The writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:-

“ a. allow this writ appeal & set aside the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6084 of 2017.

b. quash the order of compulsory retirement dated

14.08.2017 issued by Respondent No.2;

c. any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, including cost of the petition be ordered in favour of Appellants.”

3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Director (Research) under the respondent authorities vide order dated 07.07.1993. On 25.04.2017, the State Government issued a circular and laid down guidelines for compulsory retirement of a government servant on attaining the age of 50 years or completion of 20 years of qualifying service. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 14.08.2017, issued an order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was negligent towards his work and he was a habitual drunkard Respondent No. 1 also considered the fact that despite the warning, there was no improvement. The health condition of the appellant was also not good, and the annual conduct reports of the years 2010 to 2017 were not submitted by the petitioner himself by making self-assessment The authority concerned also took into consideration the fact that the petitioner took 851 days of leave, and those leaves were adjusted against the earned leave and leave without pay etc. Consequently, after attaining the age of 50 years, the order of compulsory retirement was passed according to the provisions of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules and Section 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The appellant preferred the writ petition against the order which was dismissed by the learned Single Bench, thus this appeal.

4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated

19.08.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX

12. It is a well settled principle of law that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment, and further, the petitioner had completed the age of 50 years when the order was passed.

13. Considering the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the respondent authorities. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).”

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though ACRs for seven years were not submitted by the appellant, the respondent authorities were under an obligation to issue a show cause notice to the appellant in this regard, and in the absence of ACRs, the order of compulsory retirement should not have been passed. He would further