IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12981of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Bimla Devi ……...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Subhash Chander, learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite repeated requests, she is not being paid gratuity after her retirement. 2. By way of communication dated 25.7.2024 (Annexure P-9) addressed to Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) ICDS department Block/Project Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, petitioner requested for release of gratuity amount as per Gratuity Act as well as in terms of mandate contained in the judgment - 2 - passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CA No. 3153 of 2023 (SLP(Civil) No. 30193 of 2017) titled as Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod and Ors, but fact remains that till date, no steps have been taken by the respondents for release of gratuity. Though having taken note of communication dated 25.7.2024, CDPO, District Mandi, recommended case of the petitioner to District Program Officer Mandi vide communication dated 22.8.2024 (Annexure P-10), but till date, afore authority has not processed case of the petitioner for gratuity. 3. Though Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, learned Senior Panel Counsel and Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respective respondents, attempted to argue that gratuity, as prayed for, may not be payable for the reason that she was being paid fixed honorarium and her job was not permanent, but having carefully perused afore judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court coupled with the fact that respondents, in similar facts and circumstances, have proceeded to grant gratuity to retired Anganwadi Worker as is evident from judgment dated 27.9.2021 passed in CWP No. 501 of 2021 titled as Child Project Officer v. Yamuna Verma, wherein respondents made a statement that they have made payment of gratuity to above named Anganwadi Worker, this Court is not persuaded to agree with aforesaid submission of learned counsel representing the respondents. - 3 - 4. In view of the aforesaid facts, especially afore judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to ensure that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken upon the application dated 25.7.2024 (Annexure P-9), which has been further forwarded by the Child Development Officer to District Program Officer vide communication dated 22.8.2024 (Annexure P-10) expeditiously, preferably, within three weeks and thereafter, necessary payment, if any, is made to the petitioner on account of gratuity forthwith. Ordered accordingly. Present petition is disposed of in the afore terms alongwith pending applications, if any. August 12, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge