1 2025:CGHC:37311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1292 of 2023 Shri Shyamu W/o Parasram, Aged About 66 Years R/o Shitla Colony Pandari Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Zone Commissioner, Zone No. 03 Municipal Corporation Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 30.07.2025 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.04 18:58:34 +0530 2 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “10.1 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for entire Records from the office of the respondent in respect of Petitioner's claim. 10.2. The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents no 03 and 04 to pay gratuity Rs 2,80,098 amount with interest. 10.3 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent 02 to recover gratuity amount as per order 31.03.2022 passed by controlling authority from respondent no 03 and 04.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner had rendered more than 40 years of continuous and unblemished service on the post of Safai Kamgar under the office of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, having been appointed on 01.04.1979 and superannuated on 30.06.2018. At the time of his retirement, the petitioner was drawing a monthly salary of ₹32,760/-. It is a well-settled principle that retirement dues such as gratuity are not a matter of charity or discretion, but a statutory right and enforceable legal entitlement of an employee, forming part of the employee’s deferred wages. It is submitted that after retirement, the petitioner was paid only ₹5,40,540/- as gratuity, whereas he was entitled to ₹7,56,000/-. Despite repeated 3 representations and follow-up with the concerned authorities, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 failed to disburse the remaining lawful dues. Consequently, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, ‘Act of 1972’), by filing a proper application under the said Act. The Controlling Authority, Raipur, upon due consideration of the facts and documents, vide order dated 18.06.2021, passed in Case No.138/PGA/2021, allowed the petitioner’s claim and directed the payment of the balance gratuity amount of ₹2,15,460/-, along with interest of ₹64,638/- to the petitioner. Since a portion of gratuity had already been paid, the controlling authority considered that aspect and passed the order accordingly. It is submitted that no appeal or challenge has been preferred by respondent Nos. 3 or 4 against the said order, and thus the order dated 18.06.2021 has attained finality. Despite the petitioner’s approach to the respondents for compliance with the said order, no payment has been made till date, forcing the petitioner to again move the Controlling Authority for execution. Consequently, the Controlling Authority issued a Recovery Certificate under Section 8 of the Act of 1972 on 31.03.2022 for recovery of ₹2,80,098/-, which includes the outstanding gratuity and statutory interest. The certificate was duly forwarded to Collector, Raipur (Respondent No. 2) for recovery as arrears. Learned counsel further submits that despite the passage of considerable time, respondent No. 2 has failed to initiate any 4 steps for recovery, causing severe financial hardship and mental distress to the petitioner, who is a retired Class-IV employee and has no other source of income. The failure of the authorities to comply with a final order passed under a statutory enactment, and in turn, the failure to discharge a legal duty under Section 8 of the Act of 1972, amounts to gross dereliction of statutory responsibility. It is further submitted that the retiral dues of an employee are his rightful property, and withholding or delaying such dues without legal justification is highly arbitrary and in breach of fair administrative practice. As such, the writ petition be allowed and a direction be issued to respondent No.2 to immediately take steps for recovery of ₹2,80,098/- as arrears, in compliance with the Recovery Certificate dated 31.03.2022 as well as direct the respondent authorities to pay the due amount to the petitioner forthwith, along with further interest till the date of actual payment. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions advanced by the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 5. After considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has approached the competent authority under the Act of 1972, and the said authority 5 has already passed a reasoned order dated 18.06.2021, whereby the gratuity amount of ₹7,56,000/- along with interest has been determined in favour of the petitioner. It is further observed that, in pursuance of the said order, a Recovery Certificate under Section 8 of the Act of 1972 has been issued on 31.03.2022 and is currently pending before respondent No.2 (Collector, Raipur) for further action. 6. In view of the fact that the order of the Controlling Authority remains unchallenged and has attained finality, and the recovery proceedings are pending due to inaction on part of the respondent No.2, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to expedite the proceedings initiated under the Recovery Certificate dated 31.03.2022 and conclude the same within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Gopal / Yogesh