1 2025:CGHC:49907 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2328 of 2023 Jagdish Ram Sahu S/o Dharam Singh Sahu Aged About 67 Years R/o Gondpara, Behind Bastimal Dukan, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur 2 - The Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 07.10.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.07 17:53:45 +0530 2 10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent authorities to release gratuity amount of Rs. 2,59,969/- with compounding interest 12% per annum from 11.04.2019 in favour of petitioner, forthwith. 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, are that the petitioner was employed as a daily wager with Nagar Palika Parishad, Mahasamund from 07.08.1995 to 31.08.2008 and was regularized on 06.05.2008. He retired on 30.04.2016 upon attaining superannuation. After retirement, the respondent failed to pay his gratuity. The petitioner approached the Controlling Authority, which, by order dated 11.03.2019, directed payment of Rs.2,59,969/- with interest. Despite this, the amount was not released, leading the petitioner to seek recovery. The Controlling Authority, by order dated 29.07.2020, directed attachment of the respondent’s properties to recover the gratuity. Even after this, the respondents failed to comply. The petitioner, aged 67 and suffering from serious illnesses, urgently requires the gratuity amount for medical treatment, but is being denied his legitimate dues due to inaction by the authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non-payment of gratuity to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, 3 violating Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The gratuity is the petitioner’s property, and the inaction of the respondents appears malafide and intended to harass him. The petitioner, aged 67 and suffering from multiple serious illnesses, urgently requires the gratuity for medical treatment and similar relief has been granted to other similarly placed persons by this Court, as such, same relief has been granted to the petitioner on the ground of parity. The respondents’ actions are contrary to law, principles of natural justice, and are arbitrary, capricious, and unilateral. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the grievance of the petitioner has largely been addressed. The entire gratuity amount of Rs. 2,59,969/- has already been paid to the petitioner, Shri Jagdish Ram Sahu, in installments between 25.05.2022 and 20.04.2023, as reflected in the records of the Municipal Council, Mahasamund (Annexure R-3/1). As regards the interest component, respondent No. 1 is in the process of granting the same at the earliest. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the State, it is evident that the principal amount of gratuity due to the petitioner has been paid in full. However, the interest component, which is also payable to the petitioner, remains to be released. 6. In view of the same, respondent No. 1 is directed to release the interest amount due to the petitioner without any further delay, 4 preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 7. It is further clarified that in the event the interest amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court by filing an appropriate petition for enforcement of the direction. 8. With the above observations and directions, the instant petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs is made, keeping in mind that the primary grievance of the petitioner has largely been addressed by the payment of the principal gratuity amount. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh