2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(L) No. 145 of 2019 Sub. Ares Manager Secl Rajgamar Project, Korba, Area, P.O. Rajgamar District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner Versus 1 - The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And The Deputy Chief Commissioner (C), Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Raipur Chhattisgarh; 2 - The Controlling Authority And The Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Under The Payment Gratuity Act, 1972, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh; 3 - Shri D.P. Saraf Ex - Chief Store Keeper, Qtr. No. E-22, 15 Block, Secl Colony, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Vivek Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri D.P. Saraf respondent No.3 in person through Video Conferencing. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 02/03/2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the respondent No.1 in appeal No. PGA/30/2018 whereby the respondent No.1 has confirmed the order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 in case No. BSP – 36 (60)/2017-RLC and dismissed the appeal. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.03.11 12:49:49 +0530 -2- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 is anex employee of the petitioner. He retired on 30.06.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of ‘Chief Store Keeper’. As the petitioner did not vacate the official residence alloted to him in due course of time, the gratuity payable to him was withheld by the petitioner. The respondent No.3 filed an application under Rule 10 of Gratuity Rules before the respondent No.2 against the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 14.03.2018 allowed the application filed by the respondent No.3 and directed the petitioner to pay gratuity amount of Rs.10,00,000/- Plus 10 % simple interest from the date of retirement to the actual date of payment. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1 against the order of respondent No.2. The appeal filed by the respondent No.3 was registered as case No. PGA/30/2018 and the appeal filed by the petitioner was registered as case No. PGA/31/2018. He further submits that by the impugned order, the appeal filed by the respondent No.3 was dismissed. He submits that though by a separate order, the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed in case No. PGA/30/2018, however, inadvertenly that order could not be challenged in this writ petition. However, he fairly submits that the entire amount of gratutiy has already been paid and the dispute only remains with the payment of the interest part. As the petitioner did not vacate the official residence and continued to occupy the same despite an express order by the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to receive the penal rent from the respodnent No.3, and thus, the interest part awarded to the respoondent No.3 may be set aside. 4. Per contra, respondent No.3 in person submits that this writ petition itself is not maintainable as challenge therein is to the impugned order passed in the appeal filed by the respondent No.3 before the respondent No.1. The appeal filed by the respondent No.3 was dismissed affirming the order passed by the -3- respondent No.2 dated 14.03.2018. He further submits that as the petitioner had also challenged the order of respondent No.2 in a separate appeal and if any grievance remained, the petitioner ought to have challenged the order by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. He submits that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From perusal of the records it appears that the respondent No.2 on 14.03.2018 allowed the application of the respondent No.3 and granted gratuity with interest as stated above. It appears that petitioner as well as respondent No.3 challenged the same before the respodnent No.1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the respondent No.1 in the appeal filed by the respondent No.3. Perusal of the impugned order indicate that the appeal filed by the respondent No.3 is dismissed. Thus, the orders appears to be in favour of the petitioner. Learned cousnel for the petitioner tried to perusade this Court that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of respondent No.2 was registered separetly and separate order was passed. However, as the dispute is related to interest part this submissions is liable to be rejected as the petitioner in this writ petition had not challenged the order passed by the respondent No.1 in the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thus in the opinion of this court, the impugned order does not reflect any grievance against the petitioner. Thus writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. All the pending applications are disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashsih