News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 140 | 2026:CGHC:4258

January 23, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a writ petition filed by an 80-year-old retired principal who sought restoration of two withheld annual increments that continue to affect his pension more than two decades after disciplinary action was taken against him.

In WPS No. 9195 of 2023, Natthulal Vastrakar, a former Principal in the state Education Department, challenged orders dated December 5, 2022 and January 30, 2023, by which the State rejected his request to restore two increments that had been withheld with cumulative effect. The matter was heard and decided by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad on January 23, 2026.

Vastrakar had been placed under suspension in March 2000 during his service. Following disciplinary proceedings, his suspension was revoked on June 11, 2003, but he was penalized with withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. He did not file a departmental appeal against that order at the time. He later retired on June 30, 2005.

The case stemmed from an alleged misappropriation of Rs. 1,59,000 by an accountant, Karimulla Khan. The amount was deposited back on August 2, 2005. Vastrakar argued that since the entire sum had been recovered and he had no direct role in the misappropriation, the punishment should not continue to reduce his pension. He also pointed to his advanced age and financial hardship.

Earlier, he had approached the High Court in 2018. The court had then directed the authorities to consider his pending representation in accordance with law. Acting on that direction, the State examined his representation but rejected it in January 2023, noting that the 2003 punishment order had already attained finality and had never been challenged.

Before the court, the petitioner argued that the rejection was mechanical and failed to consider that the misappropriated amount had been recovered. He also claimed violation of natural justice and disproportionate punishment.

The State opposed the plea, contending that as Drawing and Disbursing Officer, the petitioner bore supervisory responsibility. It also argued that the punishment order had become final long ago and could not be reopened after such a delay.

The High Court agreed with the State. It held that the 2003 punishment order was never challenged and had therefore attained finality. The subsequent recovery of funds from the accountant did not erase the supervisory lapse attributed to the petitioner. The court also rejected the argument of violation of natural justice, observing that no such grievance had been raised at the time of disciplinary proceedings.

Relying on rulings of the Supreme Court of India in cases including Board of Directors, Himachal Pradesh Transport Corpn. v. K.C. Rahi and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, the High Court reiterated that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited to examining the decision-making process and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or reconsideration of punishment unless it is shown to be perverse or without jurisdiction. Finding no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the State’s decision, the court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Reference : WPS No. 9195 of 2023, Natthulal Vastrakar vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another; For Petitioner: Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate; For State: Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer.