2026:HHC:10088 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 781 of 2019 Reserved on: 20.03.2026 Decided on: 02.04.2026 ______________________________________________ Kirpa Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and others ...Respondents ______________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Dr. Nidhi Singh and Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “(i) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to grant the gratuity for daily wage period (1981 to 31.12.1993) in view of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in cases (Supra) with in time bound manner along with 15% interest.” 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:10088 as per the pleadings in the writ petition are that the petitioner was engaged as Storekeeper on daily wage basis, in the year, 1980 with the Irrigation and Public Health Department and completed 240 days’ in each calendar year w.e.f. 1981. Later on, his services were regularized and he was conferred work charge status as a Storekeeper on 01.01.1994. He now stands retired from service as Store Clerk on 31.03.2010 (Annexure P-1). 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he has not been considered for payment of gratuity for daily wage period, for which, he is entitled to under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (For short “the Gratuity Act”) as well as law down by this Court in Lakshri Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and HPSEB and another versus Balak Ram and another, though he had made a representation. The payment of gratuity for daily wage service is statutory/legal right of the petitioner and the respondent- Department is under obligation to pay the same and they cannot snatch the right of the petitioner. 4. The respondents filed reply to the petition and claimed that gratuity of daily wage period under the Gratuity Act, amounting to ₹8177/- has been paid to the petitioner and thus the 3 2026:HHC:10088 writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 5. This Court on 28.10.2025 had directed the respondents to impart instructions as to whether the petitioner has received gratuity for regular service rendered from 01.01.1994 till his superannuation on 31.03.2010, under the provisions of CCS Pension Rules or not. In terms of the said order, the respondents have placed on record the instructions and disclosed that the entire amount of gratuity admissible for the period of regular service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1994 to 31.03.2010 has been paid. It has also been disclosed therein that initially gratuity of ₹1,49,622/- was authorized, which was subsequently revised to ₹1,59,044/- and thereafter to ₹1,79,529/-. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of gratuity as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2018) 5 SCC 430, wherein it has been held that the entire service including daily wage service is to be counted for grant of gratuity, once the daily wage service has been taken into account for regularization. He further argued that the Gratuity Act, being a welfare legislation intended for the benefit of employees, who have served the employer for a long 4 2026:HHC:10088 period, casts a bounden duty upon the State to pay gratuity to the employee rather than deny the benefit on technical grounds and compel him/her to approach the Court. 7. Learned Advocate General for the respondents, on the other hand, has vehemently argued, that the issue regarding grant of gratuity, in view of the decision in Dhansai Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2020) 19 SCC 808, has been referred to a Larger Bench and since the matter is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter may be adjourned sine die. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 9. No doubt the matter has been referred to the Larger Bench, but as per the judgment passed in Netram Sahu’s case (supra), wherein the similar issue was raised, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ordered to count the entire service including daily wage service rendered by an employee for granting him the benefit of the gratuity under the Gratuity Act. Thus, the matter cannot be deferred for adjudication on this count. 10. Learned Advocate General has placed heavy reliance upon the definition of “employee” in Section 2(e) of the Gratuity 5 2026:HHC:10088 Act and contended that in no uncertain terms, it provides that if a person holds a post under the Central Government or the State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for Payment of Gratuity, the provisions of the 1972 Act, will have no application. 11. No doubt, the above provision says so, but once the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Netram Sahu’s case (supra) has already held that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act are applicable to a daily wager and further ordered to count the period of daily wage service for grant of payment of gratuity, this Court is of the considered view that the similar benefit deserves to be extended to the petitioner, thereby granting him the gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 12. No doubt in the present case, the respondents have stated that the petitioner has been granted the gratuity amounting to ₹8177/-, but the said amount is to too low. The petitioner is entitled to receive the amount after considering the entire service including the daily wage service rendered by him. If the petitioner was only entitled to an amount of ₹8,177/- as per office order dated 13.08.2012 (Annexure R-1) placed on record by the respondents, learned Advocate General would not have made 6 2026:HHC:10088 submission to adjourn the matter sine die for the reason that the matter is under consideration before the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It shows that the respondents have also admitted that the petitioner is entitled to the amount after counting the entire service and not in piecemeal as has been done by the respondents. Even otherwise also, no distinction can be carved out between the services rendered on daily wage basis and on regular basis, if the services on daily wages are followed by regularization. 13. No doubt the matter has been referred to the Larger Bench, but still the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Netram Sahu’s case (supra), is in place and this Court is bound to follow the said judgment in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnish Kumar Rai vs. Union of India and others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 842, wherein it has been held that though the matter has been referred to the larger Bench, but judicial propriety demands that the earlier decision is followed. The relevant paras read as under:- “4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to our notice a coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi [(2023) 2 SCR 59] in which the point of law 7 2026:HHC:10088 laid down in the earlier judgment passed by this Court in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) has been referred to a larger Bench. But so far as this Bench is concerned, we do not think judicial propriety permits ignoring the ratio laid down by the coordinate Bench in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) as no decision has come as yet from the larger Bench on the point of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court in a similar context. If we were to take a different view, the only course open for us would have been to refer the petition to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for being adjudicated by a larger Bench, as has been done in the case of Sanjiv Chaturvedi (supra). No argument has been raised before us that the decision in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) is per incurium.” 14. The same very issue had cropped up before a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4632 of 2025, titled, Bindumati vs. State of H.P. and others, and held that the decision referred to Larger Bench continues to govern until decision of the larger Bench is pronounced. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under: “Having observed above, it also 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 8 2026:HHC:10088 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 welfare legislation meant for benefit of employees who serve their employer for long time, it was duty of State to pay gratuity to employee rather than deny benefit on some technical ground and force 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 9 2026:HHC:10088 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 10 2026:HHC:10088 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. 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 refered 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). For the forging reasons, it has to be held that gratuity admittedly due in favour of petitioner as sanctioned by respondent No.3 on 08.02.2024 and which order has 11 2026:HHC:10088 attained finality, cannot be withheld by respondent No.5 i.e. The Treasury Department.” 15. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant gratuity to the petitioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act, considering the entire service from 1981 to 31.03.2010, after adjusting the amount already paid to him, within three months from today. In case the amount is not paid within three months from today, it shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from due date till its payment. However, no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2nd April, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge