-1- 2025:CGHC:17437 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 164 of 2016 Devi Prasad Sahu S/o Late Shri Kamta Prasad Sahu, Aged About 66 Years Retired Employee Chowkidar, R/o Village Newsa, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Water Resource, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Appellate Authority, Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, Office Of The Labour Commissioner, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Appellate Authority, Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 And Deputy Labour Commissioner, Office Of The Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Controller Authority, Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 And Assistant Labour Commissioner Office Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, E/ M, Light Machinery, Tubewell And Gate, Sub Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 6 - The Executive Engineer, E/ M, Light Machinery, Tubewell And Gate, Sub Division Sakri, P.S. Chakarbhata, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Udho Ram Koshaley, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.04.2025 1) In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act dated 06.05.2014 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 31.10.2015. 2) Mr. Koshley, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily rated employee (Watchman) on 01.11.1983. His services were regularized in the Work-Charged Establishment on 14.08.2008, and he retired on 31.08.2013. He contends that the petitioner served the respondents for more than 30 years and therefore submitted an application for payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, the Act, 1972). He argues that the -3- Controlling Authority rejected the application vide order dated 06.05.2014 on the ground that the petitioner’s services were regularized only on 14.08.2008 and prior to that he was working as a daily rated employee. 3) Mr. Koshley further submits that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 06.05.2014, which was dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2015. He contends that the petitioner rendered continuous services for more than 30 years under the respondent and thus he is entitled to gratuity under the Act, 1972. He submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra and places reliance on the judgment rendered in Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2018) 5 SCC 430, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even daily rated employees are entitled to gratuity upon fulfilling the condition of continuous service as defined under Section 2A of the Act, 1972. 4) In the matter of Netram Sahu (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the legitimate claim of gratuity of a similarly placed employee categorically held in paragraphs 17 and 18 as under:- “17. In the circumstances appearing in the case, it would be the travesty of justice, if the appellant is denied his legitimate claim of gratuity despite rendering ‘continuous service’ for a period of 25 years which even, according to the State, were regularized. The question as to from which date such services were regularized was of no -4- significance for calculating the total length of service for claiming gratuity amount once the services were regularized by the State. “18. It was indeed the State who took 22 years to regularize the service of the appellant and went on taking work from the appellant on payment of a meager salary of Rs. 2776/- per month for 22 long years uninterruptedly and only in the last three years, the State started paying a salary of Rs. 11,107/- per month to the appellant. Having regularized the services of the appellant, the State had no justifiable reason to deny the benefit of gratuity to the appellant which was his statutory right under the Act. It being a welfare legislation meant for the benefit of the employees, who serve their employer for a long time, it is the duty of the State to voluntarily pay the gratuity amount to the appellant rather than to force the employee to approach the Court to get his genuine claim.” 5) Mr. Lav Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Koshley. 6) Heard. 7) Considering the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Netram Sahu (supra), and in view of the fact that the petitioner rendered long and continuous service under the respondents as a daily rated and contingency paid employee, this Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by the Controlling Authority dated 06.05.2014 and the Appellate Authority dated 31.10.2015 are not sustainable in law. -5- 8) Accordingly, both impugned orders are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to decide the petitioner’s application afresh, strictly in accordance with the law and keeping in mind the judgment passed in Netram Sahu (supra), preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim