JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. The petitioner/State feels aggrieved against the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the Controlling Authority (Labour Officer), Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, H.P., directing the petitioner (respondent therein) to pay gratuity to the respondent (applicant therein). Petitioner’s grievance is also against the further order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, dismissing petitioner’s appeal against the aforesaid order and directing the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,85,304/- along with accrued interest in favour of the respondent towards his gratuity. 2. Heard learned Additional Advocate General and considered the case file. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as a daily wage Class-IV employee on 26.03.1996. He joined his duties as such on 27.03.1996. His services were regularized on 11.07.2006. The respondent retired as a Class-IV employee on 31.03.2014 after attaining the age of superannuation. Since he was not paid gratuity, he approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority, vide order dated 17.05.2023, took cognizance of the fact that the respondent had continuously worked for 18 years with the petitioner/employer, the said period included daily wage service rendered by him for about 10 years. The respondent was held entitled to gratuity, which was computed on the basis of the wages last drawn by him at the time of superannuation. The payable gratuity was worked out at Rs.2,45,285/-. The petitioner/employer had already paid an amount of Rs.88,575/- towards gratuity to the respondent. However, for the service rendered by the respondent on daily wage basis, gratuity was not paid. Applicable interest was also not paid. The petitioner assailed the order dated 17.05.2023 before the Appellate Authority. The ground urged before the Appellate Authority, which is also reiterated in the present writ petition, essentially pertains to the gratuity payable to the respondent vis-à-vis the service rendered by him on daily wage basis. According to the employer/petitioner, the respondent served on daily wage basis from the year 1996 up to 11.07.2006, therefore, gratuity for the said period was to be computed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, and for the remaining period, gratuity was to be calculated in accordance with the Central Civil Services (CCS) (Pension) Rules, 1972. According to the employer/petitioner, the respondent served on daily wage basis from the year 1996 up to 11.07.2006, therefore, gratuity for the said period was to be computed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, and for the remaining period, gratuity was to be calculated in accordance with the Central Civil Services (CCS) (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 29.08.2025 as under: - “In view of the facts and circumstances, after affording ample opportunities of being heard during the proceedings to both the parties to the appeal and in view of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I am constrained to dismiss the appeal. The facts recorded hereinabove clearly envisages and establishes beyond doubt that there is no relevance to go into peripheral details of the appeal in view of the facts and contentions raised in the appeal whatsoever in view of the facts recorded hereinabove. The careful analysis and consideration of the foregoing facts and circumstances and relevant provisions has been done in totality and accordingly, as provided in Section-7(8) of the ibid Act, in view of the above mentioned conclusions and the present appeal is accordingly dismissed after considering all the relevant facts, circumstances and relevant provisions and orders of the Controlling Authority are upheld as per contents of the following para; Last wages drawn= Rs. 23,620/- Length of service 18 years. Total last wages drawn x length of service x 15/26= Rs. 23,620/-(x)18(x)15/26-Rs. 2,45,285/- (Rs. Two Lakh Forty Five Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Five Only). However, the Respondent/Claimant has already been paid a sum of Rs. 88,575/-on account NPS gratuity. Therefore Rs. 1,56,710/- (Rs. 2,45,285/-(-) Rs. 88,575/-) alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing the claim application till the payment is actually made to the Respondent/Claimant by the Appellant/Employer is due to be paid. The appeal is dismissed and order of Controlling Authority passed on 17.05.2023 is accordingly upheld. The Appellant/Employer has deposited an amount of Rs. 2,90,660/-vide demand draft No. 122416, dated 21.11.2023 (determined amount alongwith interest) as determined and ordered to be paid by the Controlling Authority while preferring the appeal and the same amount alongwith accrued interest will be paid to the Respondent/Claimant as and when application for the same is received. The Appellant/Employer has deposited an amount of Rs. 2,90,660/-vide demand draft No. 122416, dated 21.11.2023 (determined amount alongwith interest) as determined and ordered to be paid by the Controlling Authority while preferring the appeal and the same amount alongwith accrued interest will be paid to the Respondent/Claimant as and when application for the same is received. Further the Respondent/Claimant is entitled for simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of Institution/filing gratuity claim application before the Controlling Authority i.e. w.e.f. 11.11.2021 to 21.11.2023 (740 days) i.e. the date on which the amount is deposited alongwith the appeal by the Appellant/Employer with the Appellate Authority amounting to Rs. 28,594/-. Therefore the Respondent/Claimant is entitled to be paid gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,85,304/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Three Hundred Four only) (Rs. 1,56,710/- Amount (+) Rs. 28,594/- Simple Interest) by the Appellant/Employer and it is accordingly ordered. The same amount along with the interest accrued will be paid JAB Respondent/Claimant as and when application for the same is received and remaining amount le. Rs. 1,05,356/- (Rs. 2,90,660/- (-) Rs. 1,85,304/-) along with accrued interest will be returned/refunded to the Appellant/Employer. These directions are made on the basis of service details stated by the Appellant/Employer and available in the case file and if some changes have taken/take place on about, service particulars, last wages/salary drawn, payments made on account of payment of 'Gratuity or Inadvertent arithmetical calculation errors are identified, subsequently, therefore in such circumstances these directions/orders shall stand modified accordingly. These payments are further subject to provisions contained in Section-2(h) (i) of the Act, if any change in the status of Claimant or family members takes places till the payments are actually made. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Announced during the proceedings on 29th day of July, 2025 (in the presence of both the parties) and detailed orders are given/communicated as follows.” 3. The impugned order records that the employers/petitioners have already paid a sum of Rs.88,575/- to the respondent towards gratuity for the regular service rendered by him. It has further been held that the daily wage service rendered by the respondent from 1996 till 11.07.2006 could not be ignored while computing the gratuity payable to him. In the aforesaid background, the employer/petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. It has further been held that the daily wage service rendered by the respondent from 1996 till 11.07.2006 could not be ignored while computing the gratuity payable to him. In the aforesaid background, the employer/petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General has fairly admitted that the point raised in this petition was also in question in Bindumati vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No. 4632/2025 decided on 07.11.2025 and further that the decision in Bindumati, (supra) has been accepted by the respondents therein and stands implemented. Relevant portion from the said decision is as under: - “4. Indisputably, the petitioner had been sanctioned gratuity in the sum of 1,08,567/- by respondent  No.3 on 19.04.2023 for the Rs.4,21,068/- was sanctioned in regular service rendered by her. Further, under office order dated 08.02.2024, a sum of 4,21,068/- was also sanctioned in petitioner's Rs.4,21,068/- was sanctioned in favour as differential amount of gratuity for about 23 years 04 months of daily waged service discharged by her. Both the orders passed in this regard by respondent No.3 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 were accepted by the respondent Department. The remedy of appeal etc. was not availed against the aforesaid orders. That being the position, the respondent No.5’s taking objections by putting forth the Finance Department’s letter dated 31.12.2020 is beyond comprehension. Respondent No.5’s objections were irrelevant when the respondent department had accepted the orders passed by the Competent Authority more particularly the order dated 08.02.2024. Furthermore, in terms of the office letter dated 31.12.2020, the Finance Department had advised the Administrative Department to agitate the orders passed in particular given situation before the Higher Appellate Authority within the prescribed time limit. As noticed previously, in the instant case no appeal was filed by the respondent department against the orders passed by adjudicating authority. The order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the adjudicating authority having attained finality was required to be given effect to by respondent No.5. It is also relevant to take stock of the fact that respondents No. 1 to 3 (concerned department) have not even contested this writ petition. Rather a statement was made in this regard on their behalf on 20.08.2025 that they do not intend to file any reply. The petition has been opposed only by respondents No. 4 & 5 i.e. the Treasury Department. Rather a statement was made in this regard on their behalf on 20.08.2025 that they do not intend to file any reply. The petition has been opposed only by respondents No. 4 & 5 i.e. the Treasury Department. The objection of Treasury Department is not maintainable in the background of given factual situation. 5. It needs to be noticed that in Net Ram Sahu versus State of Chhattisgarh, 2018 (5) SCC 430 , the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that having regularized services of appellant (therein), State had no justifiable reason to deny benefit of gratuity to appellant which was his statutory right; Question as to from which date services were regularized was of no consequence for calculating total length of service for claiming gratuity once services were regularized. It was further held that Payment of Gratuity Act being a welfare legislation is meant for benefit of employees who serve their employer for long time and, it was duty of State to pay gratuity to employee rather than deny benefit on some technical ground and force an employee to approach Court to get his genuine claim. Portion from the decision, relevant to context is as follows: - “16. In our considered opinion, once the State regularized the services of the appellant while he was in State services, the appellant became entitled to count his total period of service for claiming the gratuity amount subject to his proving continuous service of 5 years as specified under Section 2A of the Act which, in this case, the appellant has duly proved. 17. In the circumstances appearing in the case, it would be the travesty of justice, if the appellant is denied his legitimate claim of gratuity despite rendering “continuous service” for a period of 25 years which even, according to the State, were regularized. The question as to from which date such services were regularized was of no significance for calculating the total length of service for claiming gratuity amount once the services were regularized by the State. 18. It was indeed the State who took 22 years to regularize the service of the appellant and went on taking work from the appellant on payment of a meager salary of Rs.2776/- per month for 22 long years uninterruptedly and only in the last three years, the State started paying a salary of Rs.11,107/- per month to the appellant. 18. It was indeed the State who took 22 years to regularize the service of the appellant and went on taking work from the appellant on payment of a meager salary of Rs.2776/- per month for 22 long years uninterruptedly and only in the last three years, the State started paying a salary of Rs.11,107/- per month to the appellant. Having regularized the services of the appellant, the State had no justifiable reason to deny the benefit of gratuity to the appellant which was his statutory right under the Act. It being a welfare legislation meant for the benefit of the employees, who serve their employer for a long time, it is the duty of the State to voluntarily pay the gratuity amount to the appellant rather than to force the employee to approach the Court to get his genuine claim. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we cannot agree with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court which is legally unsustainable. It is really unfortunate that the genuine claim of the appellant was being denied by the State at every stage of the proceedings up to this Court and dragged him in fruitless litigation for all these years. 20. Indeed, this reminds us of the apt observations made by the Chief Justice M.C. Chagla (as he then was) in the case of Firm Kaluram Sitaramv. Union of India. The learned Chief Justice in his distinctive style of writing while deciding the case between an individual citizen and the State made the following pertinent observations: “19. Now, we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily reply on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent Judges, as an honest person.” 21. These observations apply in full force against the State in this case because just case of the appellant was being opposed by the State on technical grounds. As a consequence, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) are set aside and the orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority are restored with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the State to the appellant. As a consequence, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) are set aside and the orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority are restored with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the State to the appellant. Cost to be paid by the State along with the payment of gratuity amount.” Though the above decision has been referred to the Larger Bench in Dhansai Sahu versus State of Chhattisgarh and another, Civil Appeal No. 564/2020, order dated 21.08.2024 however, it is also settled principle of law that decision referred to Larger Bench continues to govern until decision of the Larger Bench (Reference: Rajnish Kumar Rai versus Union of India and another, 2023 (14) SCC 782 and Ashok Kumar and another versus UOI and another, 2012 (11) SCC 321 ).” As can be deciphered from the impugned order, the sole ground taken by the employers before the learned authorities below was to draw a distinction between the service rendered by the respondent as a daily wager vis-à-vis the service rendered by him as a regular employee for the purpose of computation of gratuity payable to him. In view of the law in force at present, the issue involved stands decided in favour of the respondent by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The law laid down in Net Ram Sahu, (supra), as observed, continues to hold the field, hence, the computation of gratuity payable to the petitioner for the service rendered by him with the petitioners under the impugned order calls for no interference. No other ground was urged. In view of above, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.