1 2025:CGHC:670 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2836 of 2022 1 - Gulapi Ram Chauhan S/o Shri Baratram Chauhan Aged About 67 Years Retired Government Employee As Regional Assistant, R/o House No. 122, Behind Jail, Pragati Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Managing Director, Cg State Forest Development Corporation, Office Campus, Block -7 (A) Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Regional General Manager, Van Vikas Nigam Campus, Mangla Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Divisional Manager, Industrial Tree Pantation Division (Audogik Briksharopan Mandal), Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer For Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha with Ms. Shruti Parmar, Advocates Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, learned Panel Lawyer, for the State/respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha with Ms. Shruti Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers : “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner's cases. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to quash the impugned recovery order dated 24.06.2017 (Ann.P/1) passed by the Respondent No.3 with respect to petitioner. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to direct the Respondent authority to release the gratuity amount sum of Rs.9,02,747/- with interest to the petitioner to which he is entitled for. 10.4 Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.5 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that there is alternative remedy available under the law and he has 3 preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 18.07.2017, however, according to the petitioner, his appeal has not been decided, therefore, he was restrain to file this petition before this Court, in which the return of the respondents have been filed and they have categorically stated that an alternative remedy is available under the law, however, they have failed to consider this fact that the appeal which has been filed is not yet been decided, which is required to be decided by them. 4. As such, I am of the view that the respondent authorities should have decide the appeal and accordingly it is directed that the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 18.07.2017 be decided within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order and the petitioner is granted liberty to file an application for stay before the appellate authority. The said application should be considered preferably within a period of 15 days. 5. With this observations, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi