1 2025:CGHC:50181 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2174 of 2023 1 - Bhagwat Prasad Kannauje S/o Late Shri Shankar Lal Kannauje Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Mauharibhatha, Ward No. 27, Near Water Tank, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur- Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, Mahasamund District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Mahasamund District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4 - The Controlling Authority, Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 -Cum- Labour Court, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, (Formal Party, However The Petitioner Has Not Claimed Any Relief Against The Controlling Authority ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/10/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent no. 3 to release the unpaid gratuity amount of Rs. 4,16,890/- to the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of entitlement to its actual payment. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to take appropriate disciplinary action against the respondent no. 3, in accordance with law. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner’s father, late Shankar Lal Karmauje, was employed as a fitter in the Municipal Council Mahasamund under respondent no. 1’s department. He initially joined as a daily wager employee under respondent No. 3 on 10.10.1988 and was later regularized on 01.09.2008. Unfortunately, he passed away on 07.02.2019 during his tenure. 3 After his death, the petitioner requested respondent no. 3 for the payment of gratuity, but the amount was not paid. Consequently, the petitioner filed a claim before the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, at the Labour District Court in Mahasamund. On 26.12.2020, the court ordered respondent no. 3 to pay the gratuity amount of Rs. 4,16,890/- within one month, failing which interest would accrue as per Section 7(3)A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Despite this order, respondent no. 3 has not released the gratuity amount. The petitioner then made a representation to respondent no. 2 for payment of the gratuity amount along with interest, but the payment has still not been made. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the respondent No. 3, namely the Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipal Council, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, has failed to remit the full retiral dues owed to the petitioner, specifically the entire amount of gratuity that is rightfully due. Despite the petitioner’s lawful entitlement to these benefits upon retirement, the respondent has neither completed the payment nor fulfilled their financial obligations in this regard, thereby causing undue hardship and necessitating judicial intervention to ensure the petitioner’s rightful dues are fully disbursed without further delay. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No. 4 3 has submitted that the respondent is currently experiencing a severe shortage of funds, which has unfortunately resulted in the non-payment in question. It is further contended that despite these financial constraints, a partial payment amounting to Rs. 1,90,370/- has already been disbursed, reflecting their intention to comply with the obligations to the extent permitted by their limited resources. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, and further acknowledging that the mere shortage of funds cannot be deemed a valid reason for withholding the petitioner’s gratuity, which is a rightfully earned entitlement, it is hereby directed that Respondent No. 3 shall disburse the outstanding gratuity amount to the petitioner. This payment must be made within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, together with any applicable interest as prescribed under the relevant laws. 7. With this observation and direction , the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat