1 2026:CGHC:21972 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5518 of 2021 * - Prateek Tiwari S/o Shri Kailash Nath Tiwari, Aged About 34 Years R/o SMIG-29, Parijat Castle, Ring Road No. 2, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Bank Of India Through Its General Manager, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan, 16th Floor, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai 400021, 2 - General Manager (MCG), State Bank Of India, Mid Corporate Regional Office, 5 Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (M.P.), District : Indore, Madhya Pradesh 3 - Assistant General Manager (GB And HR), State Bank Of India, Commercial Clients Group Regional Office (East) Kolkata, Magma House, 2nd Floor, 24, Park Street, Kolkata (W.B.) 700016 4 - Assistant General Manager And COO, State Bank Of India, Commercial Clients Group, Commercial Branch, 2nd Floor, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Commercial Clients Group, Commercial Branch, 2nd Floor, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.i That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the letter dated 17/06/2021 and email dated 22/07/2021. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.05.12 10:59:19 +0530 2 10.ii That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the due gratuity amount to the petitioner. 10.iii Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.iv Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Management Trainee on contractual basis under the respondents vide order dated 29.09.2011. He would contend that the petitioner tendered his resignation after completion of 9.5 years of service on 15.03.2021 which was accepted and subsequently moved an application for grant of payment of gratuity on 01.06.2021. He would contend that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 17.06.2021 on the ground that the contractual employees are not entitled for gratuity according to Terms and Conditions of Engagement of Officers Engaged on Contract of State Bank of India. Mr. Malay Shrivastava would submit that a representation was made against the order Annexure P-1 dated 25.06.2021, but till date said representation has not been decided in the light of Code on Social Security, 2020. He would contend that according to Section 53 (1), every employee shall be entitled for payment of gratuity after completion of continuous service of 05 years. He would submit that direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation. 3. On the other hand, Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was a contractual employee, therefore, he is not entitled for payment of gratuity. He 3 would contend that the services of the petitioner were renewed for period of 01 year, then 02 years and then 03 years, and therefore, he is not entitled for payment of gratuity as per Terms and Conditions of Engagement of Officers Engaged on Contract. He would submit that the claim of the petitioner has already been rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, particularly considering the Terms and Conditions of Engagement of Officers Engaged on Contract and the Code on Social Security, 2020, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation of the petitioner dated 25.06.2021 expeditiously preferably within period of 120 days. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti