1 2025:CGHC:54966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 200 of 2025 Ramakant Awashthi S/o Late Surajbali Awashthi, Aged About 75 Years R/o Village And Post Pairi, Tahsil Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance And Planning, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education O,cer, Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education O,cer, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.11 18:06:06 +0530 2 5 - Controlling Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shriram Vidhya Mandir Higher Secondary School, Pairi Through Board Of Director/ President, Namely Tej Ram Kripon, S/o Keju Ram Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Pairi, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh 7 - Director, Public Instruction Department Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 to 5 & 7 : Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 11.11.2025 1. On the last date of hearing, notices were issued to respondent No. 6 by permitting the petitioner to serve the notice through Dasti service. The petitioner has 9led an a,davit stating that respondent No. 6 refused to accept the notice issued by this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein was respondent No. 6 in WPL No. 81/2017, in which 3 respondent No. 6 had preferred a writ petition challenging the communication/order dated 07.06.2013 passed by the Special O,cer, Finance Department, Chhattisgarh, as well as the order dated 03.08.2016 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, by which respondent No. 6 was directed to pay the gratuity. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said writ petition, WPL No. 81/2017, was disposed of in terms of the judgment/order dated 06.03.2020 passed in WPL No. 223/2017 and connected cases. Learned counsel further submits that the State subsequently preferred a writ appeal challenging the order dated 06.03.2020 in WPL No. 223/2017; however, the State did not 9le any writ appeal against the order dated 09.03.2020 passed in WPL No. 81/2017. After the order of this Court in WPL No. 81/2017, the petitioner approached the authority for grant of gratuity; however, the said request was rejected by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Public Instruction. The Deputy Director refused to release the amount of gratuity on the ground that the petitioner’s claim would be considered only after the decision of the Division Bench in the appeal, if any, 9led by the State. Learned counsel submits that though 4 the petitioner’s claim was rejected vide order dated 12.11.2021, no writ appeal has been 9led by the State questioning the order dated 09.03.2020 passed by this Court in WPL No. 81/2017. 3. Learned State counsel, Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. From a perusal of the claim, the pleadings of the petitioner, and the communication issued by the Deputy Director dated 12.11.2021, it appears that although the order of this Court dated 09.03.2020 in WPL No. 81/2017 is in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner, who is aged about 75 years, is still being denied consideration of his claim on the ground that the compliance of the order dated 09.03.2020 in WPL No. 81/2017 will be made only after the decision of the Division Bench in the appeal, if 9led by the State. 6. Be that as it may, once there is a order of this Court in favour of petitioner in WPL No. 81/2017, the State is bound to comply 5 with the same, unless the same is set aside by any higher forum. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum against the respondents who are not complying the order dated 09.03.2020 passed by this Court in WPL No. 81/2017. 8. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib