-1- 2025:CGHC:17812 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 47 of 2015 Sukhendu Vikas Dey S/o Jogeshwar Dey Aged About 65 Years R/o Kelo Irrigation Colony, Qr. No. H/1, Lochan Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil, Post And , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Executive Engineer, Kelo Pariyojana Project Division, Lakha Raigarh, Head Office - Kharsia, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District- Raigarh- Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Appellate Tribunal Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Upper Labour Commissioner, Labour Commissioner Office, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Control Tribunal Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raigarh- Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.04.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 08.01.2015 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under the Payment of Gratuity Act, -2- 1972 (for short, the Act, 1972) and Additional Labour Commissioner, Labour Commissioner Office, Chhattisgarh, in Appeal Case No. 154/PGA/2014. The said appeal arose out of the order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raigarh, in Gratuity Case No. 338/PGA/2013. 2) Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily rated employee under respondent No.1 on 01.12.1985. Services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 14.08.2008, and he retired from services on 31.01.2013 on account of superannuation. He further submitted that the petitioner worked under the respondent for a total period of 28 years and accordingly, he moved an application before the Controlling Authority claiming the payment of gratuity. He would further submit that the Controlling Authority vide order dated 25.02.2014, allowed the claim and directed respondent No.1 to pay gratuity to the tune of Rs. 2,40,786/-. The said order was challenged by respondent No.1 before the Appellate Authority, the appeal was allowed vide order dated 08.01.2015, holding that the period during which the petitioner worked as a daily rated employee cannot be counted for the purpose of determining continuous service under the Act, 1972. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2018) 5 SCC 430. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Vedant Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the -3- State, submitted that the services of the petitioner were regularized only on 14.08.2008 and prior to that date, he was working as a daily rated employee, therefore, the said period cannot be counted for determining the gratuity amount. He submitted that the Appellate Authority has passed a well-reasoned and accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the instant writ petition. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 5) From a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the petitioner worked as a daily rated employee from 01.12.1985 to 14.08.2008 His services were regularized vide order dated 14.8.2008. He retired on 31.01.2013 and his last salary drawn was Rs. 14,906/-. The Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Controlling Authority solely on the ground that the period during which the petitioner worked as a daily rated employee could not be considered for the calculation of gratuity. 6) In the case of Netram Sahu (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while addressing a similar issue with regard to the legitimate claim of gratuity by an employee, held in Paragraphs 17 and 18 as under:- “17. In the circumstances appearing in the case, it would be a 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, was regularized. The question as to from which date such services were regularized was of no 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 -4- the service of the appellant and went on taking work from the appellant on payment of a meager salary of Rs. 2,776/- per month for 22 long years uninterruptedly and only in the last three years started paying a salary of Rs. 11,107/- per month. Having regularized the services of the appellant, the State had no justifiable reason to deny the benefit of gratuity, which is a statutory right under the Act. It being a welfare legislation meant for the benefit of the employees, the State ought to have voluntarily paid the gratuity amount rather than compelling the employee to approach the Court to seek his rightful claim.” 7) Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Netram Sahu (supra), the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are not sustainable in the eyes of the law, accordingly, the order dated 08.01.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority is hereby set aside, and the order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Controlling Authority is hereby restored. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim