[2025:RJ-JP:22174] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6708/2025 1. Superintendent of Post Office, Tonk Division Tonk. 2. Post Master, Head Post Office, Nainwa Road, Bundi. ----Petitioners Versus Smt. Santra Devi Wife Of Late Shri Bansi Lal Nayak, Meera Sahib Ki Pahadi Ke Niche, Mahaveer Colony, Bundi. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 27/05/2025 1. By way of filing instant civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been made to the final order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the Controller Officer under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, directing to pay gratuity amount of Rs. 1,36,490/- to the respondent (who is widow of employee Chowkidar Late Shri Bansi Lal Nayak) along with interest @ 10% per annum so also the final order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority, affirming the directions for payment of gratuity with interest. 2. Heard counsel for petitioner, perused the impugned orders and other material available on record. 3. It is a case where husband of respondent namely Shri Bansi Lal Nayak worked as Chowkidar at Post Office, Bundi from 23.04.1988 to 22.05.2016 i.e. for a period of 28 years. He died on [2025:RJ-JP:22174] (2 of 4) [CW-6708/2025] 23.05.2016. After his death, his widow (respondent herein) filed an application under Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, to claim the gratuity amount. That application has been allowed by the Controlling Officer vide order impugned dated 29.01.2019, directing the petitioners to pay the gratuity amount along with interest. The order came to be challenged by the petitioners by way of filing appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act of 1972. The Appellate Authority considered the appeal on merits and has affirmed the final order for payment of gratuity, while dismissing the appeal vide order dated 14.02.2024. 4. Counsel for petitioners argued that deceased Bansi Lal Nayak was a contingent employee and not a regular employee in the Post Office, Bundi, hence, he was not entitled for the gratuity. 5. This Court finds that such plea has been taken into consideration by the Controlling Officer as also by the Appellate Authority. Both the authorities have categorically observed that undisputedly Bansi Lal rendered services as Chowkidar in the Post Office from 23.04.1988 to 22.05.2016, it means for a long period of 28 years. Petitioner did not produce any record to show his appointment as Contingent Chowkidar. Both authorities have taken note of that admittedly, deceased employee was receiving wages @ Rs.4333/- and dearness allowance thereupon. The gratuity has been calculated on that amount, only for the period during which he rendered services. 6. This Court finds that plea sought to be taken by the petitioner before the writ Court is a factual plea, which has already been considered by the Controlling Officer as also by the Appellate Authority. No perversity or jurisdictional error have been observed [2025:RJ-JP:22174] (3 of 4) [CW-6708/2025] in the findings of both authorities. It is settled proposition of law that interference in the fact findings by the writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 is extremely narrow and limited. In that respect, the off-quoted judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [(2001) 8 SCC 97], may be referred, wherein explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.” (emphasis supplied) 7. Moreover, petitioners have already deposited the gratuity amount with interest to the tune of Rs. 1,77,421/- before the [2025:RJ-JP:22174] (4 of 4) [CW-6708/2025] Regional Commissioner (Central) Ajmer as has been admitted in Para No. 3 of the stay application. 8. In totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. As a result, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 10. The payment of gratuity along with interest, so deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 29.01.2019, be disbursed to the respondent forthwith. 11. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned person for compliance. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /1