1 2025:CGHC:56650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 92 of 2023 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Public Instruction Directorate, Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Education Officer District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shri Devlal Sahu S/o Shri Khadak Ram Sahu R/o Village Ratnabandha, Post Loharsi, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Applicant) 2 - The President/secretary Shri Nathu Ram Moti Lal Sanskrit Primary School, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Non Applicant No. 2) 3 - The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 Office Of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhamtari District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional AG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Swapnil Kesari on behalf of Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board dated 20 /11/2025 This Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhamtari, HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.11.25 17:18:05 +0530 2 District Dhamtari, CG (for short the “Controlling Authority”) in Appeal Case No. 11/PGA/2020 by which the Controlling Authority has assessed the gratuity payable to respondent No.1 who was working with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and retired on 30.11.2013, at Rs. 9,82,395/- with interest at Rs. 7,69,542/- totalling the payable gratuity to Rs. 17,51,937/- along with monthly interest from the date of order which comes to be Rs. 8186.62. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/State submits that the impugned order is bad in law. He submits that as in fact only 04 teachers were working with respondents No. 2 and 3, there was no question of payment of gratuity to respondent No.1 by the State. 3. Replying to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners, it has been averred by the counsel for respondent No.1 that the petitioners had the alternative remedy to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. He submits that identical issue has been decided by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in WPL No. 85/2023 (State of Chhattisgarh and others v. Smt. Vasumati Sharma and others) decided on 04.10.2023 and WPL No. 88 of 2023 (State of Chhattisgarh and others v. Smt. Usha Soni and others) decided on 07.07.2025, and being so this petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The first contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that on account of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, this petition is not maintainable. For ready reference, the provision of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act reads as under: “7(7). Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the 3 appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf. Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days: [Provided further that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub-section 4, or deposits with the appellate authority such amount.” 6. Thus from the perusal of the aforesaid statutory scheme it is evident that before an statutory appeal is preferred against the order of controlling authority, the appellant is required to deposit the amount which was assessed by the controlling authority, and if the appellant fails to do so, the appellate authority may not entertain the appeal. Admittedly, the petitioners have not deposited the amount awarded by the Controlling Authority nor have they availed of the alternative remedy of statutory appeal. Division Bench of this Court in WP(227) No. 525 of 2014 (Mahabir Shiksha Prasar Samiti v. Shri S.K. Sawarkar and others) and other connected matters decided on 03.09.2014 has held as under:- “9. A bare perusal of the scheme reveals that in the event of a dispute with regard to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee or even the admissibility of any claim whatsoever towards gratuity, the employer cannot retain unto himself the final authority and decision in the matter. The adjudicatory authority is the controlling authority. If an appeal is to be preferred the amount determined by the controlling authority is required to be deposited as a pre-condition. If the argument made on behalf of the petitioners be accepted, the amount of pre-deposit has to be confined to the self assessed amount rendering the adjudication by the controlling authority irrelevant but yet subject to the appellate jurisdiction. The employer thus shall have the benefit of self assessment even after adjudication of liability continuing to deprive the employee for whose 4 benefit the legislation was enacted. Such an interpretation in our opinion shall be doing complete violence to the statutory scheme. The use of the word “deposit” does not have a different meaning under sub-section (4) (a) and (d). In the former, it talks of deposit on self-assessment. In the latter it is the amount deposited including excess amount after adjudication in excess of the self assessed amount by the controlling authority. 10. Any interpretation of a statutory provision leading to absurdity must be avoided particularly when the statute is a beneficial legislation. To hold that the pre-deposit for appeal has to be determined on basis of the self assessment made by the employer against which no appeal lies, and that the order of the Controlling Authority upon the same against which appeal lies shall be irrelevant in part for the purpose of the appeal, is an absurd interpretation which has to be avoided.” 7. Since the petitioner has not deposited the amount determined by the Controlling Authority nor availed the statutory remedy of appeal, according to the considered opinion of this Court, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioners/State is however granted 45 days time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority after complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. The interim order dated 19.06.2023 is hereby vacated. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge J/H.Ansari