1 2025:CGHC:4762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 110 of 2019 1 - D.N. Singh S/o Guru Prasad Singh Aged About 62 Years R/o Qtr. No. 44, Laxminagar, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattigarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing Director, Head Office, Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Manager (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Rajgamar, Sub Area, Rajgamar Colliery, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ set-aside the impugned order dated 15.2.2019 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make payment of interest of 10% as directed by the Controlling authority and by the Hon’ble Court, which is coming to the tune of Rs.1,31,666/-. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was an employee of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) and retired from service on account of superannuation on 28.2.2017 from the post of Overman. He would further contend that the petitioner filed a case before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for the payment of gratuity, which was allowed by an order dated 17.8.2017, directing the respondent authorities to pay a gratuity of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 10%. He would further submit that the respondents preferred an appeal, wherein the interest component was set aside. It is further argued that the petitioner filed a writ petition (WPL No. 121 of 2018), wherein the order passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside and the order of the Controlling Authority was restored. He would further submit that the petitioner received the gratuity amount on 22.1.2019, but the interest for only six months has been paid by the respondents, whereas the petitioner is entitled to receive interest on the gratuity amount from the date of retirement till 22.1.2019. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act passed an order on 17.8.2017 directing the payment of gratuity alongwith interest @ 10%. He would submit that the respondents preferred an appeal and deposited the entire amount, including the interest component, alongwith the memo of appeal. He would further contend that the appeal was partly decided in favour of the respondents and that order was challenged by the petitioner through a writ petition, which was subsequently allowed. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the amount of the gratuity was paid by the respondents alongwith the interest component pursuant to order passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act on 17.8.2017, and since the amount is lying with Appellate Authority but the petitioner failed to collect it therefore he is not entitled to claim interest from the date of deposit till the amount was withdrawn from the office of the Appellate Authority. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi