2025:CGHC:12276 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1762 of 2025 1 - Smt. Laxmi Bai Soni W/o Late Chamru Soni Aged About 67 Years R/o Behara Colony Pandri Raipur Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Veterinary (Pashudhan Vikas Vibhag) Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Secretary Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Collector Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.). 4 - The Joint Director Veterinary Hospital Services Near Mandi Gate Pandri Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.). 5 - The Veterinary Hospital Aarang District - Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12/03/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “10.1 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for entire Records from the office of the respondents in respect of Petitioner's claim. 10.2. The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents no 04 and 05 to pay gratuity amount with interest. 10.3 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent 03 to recover gratuity amount as per order 27.02.2023 passed by controlling authority from respondent no 04 and 05. 10.4 That, any other Writ, order directions or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was working on the post of Peon under the office of respondents No. 4 and 5 since 01.04.1983, during the period of her service, there is no complaint against the petitioner, the petitioner has been retired from the service after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2017, at the time of retirement the petitioner was getting Rs. 30,888/- рег month, after retirement the respondent authority paid Rs. 4,86,886/- gratuity amount to the petitioner, however, as per monthly salary the petitioner was entitled to get gratuity of Rs. 6,05,880/- but the respondent authority has not paid the amount to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner made every endeavor to grant full gratuity amount, the respondent authority have not taken any action, then the petitioner was filed an application under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for grant of gratuity before the Controlling Authority Raipur, the Controlling Authority on 27.02.2023 allowed the application and granted gratuity of Rs. 6,05,880/- with interest of Rs. 59,697/- at the date of the award Rs. 1,79,091/- gratuity amount payable to the petitioner, the petitioner approach the respondent authority for payment of gratuity as per award dated 27.02.2023 but the said amount has not been paid to the petitioner. He further submits that the respondent authority not challenge the award dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Controlling Authority, therefore, the award dated 27.02.2023 has attained final. He further submits that after passing the award of gratuity amount was not paid to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner made application for execution of order dated 27.02.2023 before the controlling authority, wherein notices has been issued to respondents No. 4 and 5, but payment of gratuity amount has not made. He further submits that on 13.12.2024 the controlling authority issued Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) Under Section 8 of Payment of Gratuity Act to Collector, Raipur, pursuant to Section 8 of Payment of Gratuity Act the amount could be recovered by the Collector as arrears of land revenue, but till date no steps has been taken by Collector/respondent No. 3. He further submits that the petitioner has retired from her service on 30.09.2017, He further submits that the petitioner has no any source of income, the respondent No. 3 not proceed to recover the gratuity amount. Hence, it is the duty of respondent No. 3 to recover the gratuity amount, but respondent No. 3 has failed to proceed the same. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. After considering the submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute that the petitioner has given her services as Peon and after her retirement, complete payment of the gratuity has not been made to her. The order passed by the Controlling Authority has attained finality and the Revenue Recovery Certificate is also pending before respondent No. 3. Hence, the respondent No. 3 is directed to expedite the proceedings on the Revenue Recovery Certificate and conclude the same, at the earliest, preferably within a time limit of 45 days from the date of production of copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat