ORDER : (Rajani Dubey, J.) 1. Since WPS No. 4803 of 2019 filed by Ravi Kumar Singh is being prosecuted by his legal heir-Chandra Kumar Singh after his death challenging his retirement order and WPS No. 3037 of 2022 has been filed Chandra Kumar Singh for release of retirement dues of his brother and the respondents are same in both these petitions, they are being heard together and decided by this common order. 2. In WPS No. 4803 of 2019, briefly stated facts of the case are that on 13/01/1982, the deceased petitioner late Ravi Kumar Singh was appointed on the post of Livestock Development Demonstration Organizer by the Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh Dugdh Sangh Sahkari Maryadit. Thereafter, in the year 1999, a policy decision was taken by the State Government to abolish the post of Milk Commissioner of Dairy Department and as a result of which the employee of M.P. Milk Federation including late Ravi Kumar Singh who was under the Milk Commissioner, were declared surplus. A policy decision was taken to deploy the surplus employees of M.P. Milk Federation in the department of Animal Husbandry on deputation and by virtue of the said decision, an order dated 12.04.1999 (Annexure P/4) was issued whereby deceased petitioner Ravi Kumar Singh was deployed as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer in the Department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services) and since he has been continuously working and after reorganization of the State, he was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Animal Husbandry where his seniority was maintained. 3. In the year 2013, the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. came into existence and in the said establishment, he was never appointed and employed, however, without any authority, the impugned order/notice dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) has been issued thereby declaring the date of retirement of the deceased petitioner to be 30.06.2019 as on the said date, late Ravi Kumar Singh has attained the age of 60 years. Hence, the instant petition has been filed for following reliefs:- 10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order/notice dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 3 without authority of law. 10.2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order/notice dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 3 without authority of law. 10.3 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief’s which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case along with the cost of the petition. 4. In WPS No. 3037/2022, facts of the case are that the brother of the petitioner namely Ravi Kumar Singh was working under the control of the respondent State as Assistant Veterinary field officer and at the relevant time, he was posted at the office of the joint Director, veterinary services, Bilaspur. The brother of the petitioner- Ravi Kumar Singh died on 20.11.2020 and since the brother of the petitioner was unmarried and, in the service record, the petitioner is the nominee to receive all the claim of late Ravi Kumar Singh, therefore after his death, petitioner made several applications for releasing all the retiral dues but no amount has been released by the respondent till the filing of the petition, hence this petition has been filed by the petitioner for following reliefs:- (i) Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ (S)/order (s)/direction (s) against the respondent authority direct the respondent authority to immediately release the entire legal dues, like the gratuity amount of Rs.20 lakhs, leave encashment amount as per the last pay withdrawal by the brother of the petitioner. (ii) Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authority to pay the penal interest @ 18% per annum for delay payment of the reiral dues of the petitioner, along with all the consequential benefits. (iii) Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ/ writs/ order/orders/direction/directions/ relief/reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. In WPS No. 4803/2019, learned counsel for the deceased petitioner submits that the impugned order/notice dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.3 is without authority of law and the same is illegal and is against the provisions of law. There is no any relation between the petitioner and the respondent no.3 as employee and employer, therefore there is no any jurisdiction with the respondent federation to issue any order/notice in respect of the deceased petitioner, thus, the impugned notice dated 12.02.2019 issued by the respondent No.3 is without jurisdiction. There is no any relation between the petitioner and the respondent no.3 as employee and employer, therefore there is no any jurisdiction with the respondent federation to issue any order/notice in respect of the deceased petitioner, thus, the impugned notice dated 12.02.2019 issued by the respondent No.3 is without jurisdiction. The respondent authority cannot exercise its power of decision making in a highly arbitrary, biased, malafied and abrupt manner and it is against Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India. Deceased petitioner- Ravi Kumar Singh filed petition in 2019 and he died on 20.11.2020 but respondent authority did not pay his retiral dues. Chandra Kumar Singh is legal heir and nominee of late Ravi Kumar Singh and he filed several applications before the respondent authorities but of no avail. 6. In WPS No.3037/2022, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action on the part of the respondents is totally illegal, unjust, unfair and improper and is in violation of well settled principles of law. Respondent authorities cannot colorfully exercise their power of decision making in a highly arbitrary, biased, mala-fide and abrupt manner. The retiral dues is not a charity or bounty. The benefit is conferred upon an employee for his unblemished career, therefore, the respondent authorities do not have a right to act against the rules of law. As per the well settled rules of law, the respondents do not have any authority of law to withhold the legal dues and other allowances of the deceased employee, therefore, the instant petitions deserve to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187, Ashok Kumar Das & Ors. Vs. University of Burdwan & Ors.; [2010] 3 S.C.R. 429, this Court’s order dated 22.04.2014 passed in WPS No. 1558/2012 in the matter of H.N. Choubey Vs. Guru Ghasidas University & Ors. & order dated 19.04.2018 passed in WPS No. 3158 of 2018 in the matter of Dr. Virendra Singh Parihar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 7. In WPS No. 4803/2019, learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 submits that the order dated 12.02.2019 has been issued by respondent No.3. Neither there is any cause of action alleged by the petitioner against the respondents nor has the petitioner sought any relief against the respondents. Virendra Singh Parihar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 7. In WPS No. 4803/2019, learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 submits that the order dated 12.02.2019 has been issued by respondent No.3. Neither there is any cause of action alleged by the petitioner against the respondents nor has the petitioner sought any relief against the respondents. He further submits that the petitioner is not an employee of the State Government in fact, he is an employee of respondent No. 3/Federation. The service of the petitioner has not been absorbed with the State Government from the respondent No.3/Federation and till the issuance of memo, the petitioner is an employee of respondent No.3/Federation and mere reflection of the name of the petitioner in the gradation list does not mean that the petitioner is an employee of the State Government unless and until his service is absorbed with the State Government. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4/State has been arrayed purely as formal parties Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed against the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that a bare perusal of the order dated 12.04.1999 (Annexure P/4) would make it apparent that the services of the petitioner were taken in the department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services) only on deputation for a period of one year. Thus, it is very much apparent that in the department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services), the petitioner was on deputation and not otherwise. While posting on deputation in the department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services), the petitioner somehow managed and succeeded in placing his name in the gradation list of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer whereas the lien of the petitioner remained with M.P. Milk Federation/ Raipur Cooperative Milk Federation, Durg because the services of the petitioner were never absorbed into the department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services) while the petitioner was taken on deputation basis. As per Annexure R/3-1 order dated 30.06.1999, it is clear that the service of the petitioner was taken on deputation in the department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services). As per Annexure R/3-1 order dated 30.06.1999, it is clear that the service of the petitioner was taken on deputation in the department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services). It is further submitted that while the petitioner was working with the Dairy Federation, the name of the petitioner was in the gradation list of Village Extension Organizer which is evident from seniority/gradation list of Village Extension Organizer of Dairy Federation which is filed as Annexure R/3-2. Though the proceedings for absorption of the services of the petitioner into the Department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services) were initiated and in response to the application moved by the petitioner seeking no objection in case of absorption of his services into the Department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services), no objection was issued by the respondent on 19/11/2010 (Annexure R/3-3). But the said proceedings were not culminated into the final order of absorption of the services of the petitioner into the Department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services) because no such order of absorption was ever issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services). 9. After formation of the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, Raipur, the services of the petitioner were taken and while the petitioner was working with the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, Raipur, the benefit of promotion was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 03/10/2013 (Annexure R/3-4). Thus, it is clear that the petitioner is an employee of Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, Raipur. 10. As per the rules governing the services of the employees of the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, Raipur, the age of superannuation of the employees is 60 years, therefore, respondent No.3 rightly initiated the proceedings against the petitioner for superannuation and issued order dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) for retirement of the petitioner with effect from 30.06.2019. Thus, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. In WPS No. 3037 of 2022, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that the brother of the petitioner namely Ravi Kumar Singh was an employee of respondent No.3 and he filed the writ petition being WPS No. 4803/2019 for challenging his retirement order and during the pendency of the said petition, he died on 20.11.2020. 11. In WPS No. 3037 of 2022, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that the brother of the petitioner namely Ravi Kumar Singh was an employee of respondent No.3 and he filed the writ petition being WPS No. 4803/2019 for challenging his retirement order and during the pendency of the said petition, he died on 20.11.2020. Since the issue with regard to superannuation of Ravi Kumar is in dispute and the legality of the same has been assailed by him which is still subjudice before this Court & until and unless the said issue is decided by this Court, no benefit of retiral dues can be extended to the petitioner by the respondents. The deceased employee (Ravi Kumar Singh) is an employee of the State Government and the same is evident from the deputation order dated 12.04.1999 (Annexure R/1). Therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed against respondents No. 1 & 2. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the respondent No.3 issued letter dated 12.02.2019 regarding the retirement of Ravi Kumar Singh but he preferred writ petition being WPS No. 4803/2014 before this Court and the same is still pending before this Court. Ravi Kumar Singh died on 20.11.2020 and respondent No. 2 paid ex-gratia payment of Rs.50,000/- for funeral to the petitioner vide order dated 23.11.2020 (Annexure R/3-2). Since the deceased petitioner was working with respondent No.2, therefore, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay all the dues to the brother of the petitioner. Therefore, the instant petition being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 13. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 14. It is also clear from Annexure P/5 dated 22.07.2013, the petitioner’s name was included in the seniority list of State Government and the same is written as under:- 15. It is very surprising that the stand of respondent No. 3 in both the writ petitions is different as in WPS No. 4803/2019, respondent No. 3 stated that Ravi Kumar Singh is an employee of respondent No.3/Federation, therefore, respondent No.3 issued retirement order of Ravi Kumar Singh and in WPS No. 3037/2022, respondent No.3/ Chhattisgarh State Dairy Co-operative Federation Ltd., stated that Ravi Kumar Singh is an employee of respondent No.2, therefore, respondent No.2 is liable to pay all dues to the brother of the deceased petitioner. 16. 16. Both parties filed several documents and it is clear that previously petitioner was appointed in M.P. Dugdha Mahasangh, Bhopal and vide order dated 12.04.1999, the services of the petitioner was redeployed as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer in the cadre of Veterinary services. It is also not disputed that as per Annexure R/3, no objection was issued by the respondent No.3 for absorption of services of Ravi Kumar Singh in State Government and it is very surprising that this proceeding was initiated on 29.11.2010 and absorption was not done till death of Ravi Kumar Singh and as per reply of respondent No.3 in WPS No. 3037/2022, ex-gratia amount was granted by respondent No.2 on 23.11.2020 and it is respondent No.2 who is liable to pay all retiral dues of the brother of the petitioner. 17. Thus, it is clear that the deceased petitioner’s name was published in gradation list of Animal Husbandry department of respondent/State and in other writ petition i.e. WPS No. 3037/2022, respondent No.3 also admitted this fact that the petitioner- late Ravi Kumar Singh was employee in respondent No. 2/State, therefore, it is liable to pay all retiral dues to him. 18. In light of above mentioned documents, it is clear that the petitioner is working with respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 so, respondent No.3 has no authority to pass any order for retirement of late Ravi Kumar Singh. 19. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of the State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibai Patel; 2022 Livelaw (SC) 187 held as under:- It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. 20. This Court vide order dated 19.04.2018 passed in WPS No. 3158 of 2018 in the matter of Dr. Virendra Singh Parihar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. held in paras 4, 5, 6 & 7 as under:- 4. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. 20. This Court vide order dated 19.04.2018 passed in WPS No. 3158 of 2018 in the matter of Dr. Virendra Singh Parihar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. held in paras 4, 5, 6 & 7 as under:- 4. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it would be relevant to refer to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ratiyo Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WPS No. 6261 of 2016 decided on 27/02/2017] wherein in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 & 11, this Court has held as under:- “8. It would be trite to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of D.D. Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Others [ 2014 (8) SCC 894 ], wherein, relying upon the decision in the case of State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair [ 1985 (1) SCC 429 ], it has been held that the pension, gratuity and retiral dues payable to an employee are not a bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but are valuable rights and property in its hands and any culpable delay in settlement or disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest. The Supreme Court has very categorically held that denial of interest amounts to miscarriage of justice. 9. Similar view has also been taken by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Punarad Prasad Bhagal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, decided on 18. 03.2013 in Writ Petition (S) No. 5231 of 2011, wherein the Court has allowed the said petition under similar circumstances. 10. The view of this Court stands further fortified from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Dhirendra Pal Singh [ 2017 (1) SCC 49 ]. 11. Considering the authoritative decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 5 cases of D.D. Tewari and Dhirendra Pal Singh (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the Petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment. ” 5. Again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Considering the authoritative decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 5 cases of D.D. Tewari and Dhirendra Pal Singh (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the Petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment. ” 5. Again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Dhirendra Pal Singh [ 2017 1 SCC 49 ] in a similar set of facts has held that the respondents are entitled to pay interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues. 6. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case so also considering the authoritative decision of the Supreme Court referred to in the preceding paragraph this Court has no hesitation in holding that for the delayed payment of retiral dues to the petitioner, he is entitled for the interest. 7. Thus, it is ordered accordingly that the respondents shall pay interest on the retiral dues paid to the petitioner @ 10% per annum from the date of retirement till the date the actual payment made 21. In this case also, it is very unfortunate that the retiral dues were not paid by respondent authorities on the ground that the previous petition is pending so they are not paying any retiral dues but now this Court held that the impugned order dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) in WPS No. 4803/2019 is not sustainable and petitioner is employee of State Government. Admittedly, the age of retirement of the State Government employee at the relevant time was 62 years. 22. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, in the light of above mentioned decisions and the manner in which the deceased petitioner was retired from services and his retiral dues were held, both the petitions stand allowed. The impugned order dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) in WPS No. 4803 of 2019 is hereby set aside. 23. Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 in WPS No. 4803/2019 and respondents No. 1 & 2 in WPS No. 3037/2022 are directed to calculate all retiral dues of late Ravi Kumar Singh till his death or his date of retirement whichever is earlier and the same be released as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this order to his legal representative i.e. Chandra Kumar Singh (petitioner herein). 24. 24. It is made clear that the amount shall be paid by the respondents with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of death of the late Ravi Kumar Singh till the actual date of payment.