1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 6441 of 2009 1 - Chief Engineer Generation Aged About 18 Years C.G. State Electricity Board Korba Cg Now Chhattisgarh Sate Electric Generation Co.Ltd. Korba Cg ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Dy. Labour Commissioner, Office of Labour Commissioner, Raipur, C.G. 2 – Controlling Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Asst. Labour Commissioner, Korba, C.G. 3 – Prem Singh Thakur, S/o. Late Shri Brij Ram Through Shri Shyam Lal Kurre Kohadiya Donginala, Ward No.11, Teh. And District Korba. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Shri K.R. Nair, alongwith Dr. Veena Nair, Advocates. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Manoj Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15 .04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That the order dtd. 27.01.2009 passed by appellate authority under Payment of Gratuity Act Raipur Annexure P/1 passed in appeal no. 22/PGA/2008 in case of Chief Engineer (Generation) C.S.E.B. v. Prem Singh Thakur be kindly quashed. NIRMALA RAO 2 10.2 That the order dtd. 08.02.2008 Annexure P/2 passed by the controlling authority under Payment of Gratuity Act Korba passed in case no. 1/PGA/2008 in case of Prem Singh Thakur v. Chief Engineer (Generation) C.S.E.B. be kindly quashed. 10.3 That the respondent no. 3 after deduction of house rent allowance to the tune of Rs.1,92,246.00 and advance Rs.55,557.00 is entitled to get gratuity to the tune of Rs.84,766.00 but has withdrawn the amount of Rs.3,21,531.00 which has been deposited with the appellate authority under Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore the respondent no. 3 be kindly directed to refund Rs. 2,36,765.00 with interest or the petitioner be kindly allowed to recover the amount from monthly pension paid to respondent No.3. 10.4 That the records of the Lower Authorities be kindly commended. 10.5 Cost of the proceedings be kindly awarded. 10.6 Any other relief as deem fit by the Hon'ble Court be kindly awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.3, who worked as an Attendant, reached the age of superannuation on 28.2.2006 and thereafter, moved an application for payment of gratuity before the Controlling Authority and the said application was partly allowed whereby a direction was issued to make payment of Rs.3,21,531/-. He would submit that the order passed by the Controlling Authority was challenged before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.1.2009. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that there was an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.2,47,803/- and this fact was brought to the attention of both the Controlling and 3 Appellate Authorities, it was not considered. Consequently, he prays to quash the orders passed by both authorities. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/ Workman would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that pursuant to the order passed by the Controlling Authority, the assessed gratuity amount was deposited at the time of filing the statutory appeal and the said amount was withdrawn by the Workman. He would submit that even if an order was passed in favour of the petitioner, the amount cannot be recovered from the Workman after a lapse of 19 years. He would argue that there is concurrent findings recorded by the Controlling and Appellate Authorities and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. The Controlling Authority assessed the amount of gratuity and directed the petitioner to make payment and the said order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The Controlling Authority assessed the amount of gratuity after appreciation of documentary evidence and this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not act as an Appellate Authority, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Controlling Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Further, the amount of gratuity assessed by the Controlling Authority was deposited by the petitioner at the time of filing of appeal and the said amount was withdrawn by the Workman on 29.1.2010, therefore, no order of recovery can be passed against the Workman in this petition. 4 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference in this matter. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi