1 2026:CGHC:25887 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 226 of 2019 The Chairman Cum Managing Director South Eastern Coalfields Limited, HQ. District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - M. S. Ahluwalia (Ex - General Manager (Civil), Secl Head Quarter Bilaspur), R/o G - 28, Sector - 56, Noida, New Delhi, Pin 2013010. 2 - Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 And Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Government Of India, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Appellate Authority As Well As Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Regional Labour Commissioner, (Central) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/06/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire record of Appellate Authority as well as Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in Case No. BSP- 36(39)/2017-RLC and Appeal No. PGA 03/2018. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure P/1) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act as well as order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Controlling Authority. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold that the Respondent No. 1 is not entitled for gratuity as well as interest under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act on 17.07.2019, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of 20 lakhs along with ₹ interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date it became payable, i.e., 31.01.2017, till the date of actual payment. 3. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.1 was holding the post of General Manager (Civil). An article of charge was issued against him on 05.12.2016 alleging that he had caused financial loss to the company. He would further submit that a departmental inquiry was conducted and vide order dated 11.11.2023, the penalty of reduction to two stages lower in the time scale of pay for a period of nine months and recovery of the loss caused to the company was imposed upon him. The respondent No.1 preferred a departmental appeal and the second part of the penalty with regard to recovery of the loss was quashed vide order dated 16.04.2024 and the order of penalty i.e. “reduction to two 3 stages lower in the time scale of pay for a period of nine months”, was affirmed. 4. Mr. Deshmukh would further submit that respondent No. 1 moved an application for grant of gratuity before the Controlling Authority, after retirement & during the pendency of the departmental inquiry on 15.06.2017. The said application was allowed and a direction was issued to the petitioner herein to make payment of gratuity of 10 lakhs to ₹ respondent No. 1 within a period of 30 days vide order dated 30.01.2018. 5. The petitioner herein challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority and the appeal was decided vide order dated 22.07.2019, whereby the amount of gratuity was enhanced from 10 lakhs to 20 ₹ ₹ lakhs pursuant to the Clause XI (ii) of the Office Memorandum No. CIL/C5A(PC)/Pay Revision 2017/2972 dated 08.08.2018 with interest @ 10 % per annum. 6. Mr. Deshmukh would submit that as the appeal was preferred by the petitioner alone, there was no occasion for the Appellate Authority to enhance the amount of gratuity or grant interest on the said amount; thus, he would pray to set aside the impugned order. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would submit that there was delay on the part of the petitioner-company in making payment of gratuity and, therefore, the Appellate Authority has rightly granted interest at the rate of 10% 4 per annum. He would further submit that during the pendency of the appeal, the amount of gratuity was enhanced from 10,00,000/- to ₹ ₹20,00,000/- vide order dated 30.08.2018 with effect from 01.01.2017. He would further submit that along with application, order dated 30.01.2018 was placed before the Appellate Authority during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, the Authority rightly enhanced the gratuity amount and granted interest at the rate of 10% per annum. He would submit that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 9. The Controlling Authority, vide its order dated 30.01.2018 granted gratuity to the tune of 10,00,000/- in favour of the respondent No.1. ₹ The said order was never challenged by the respondent Np.1 for enhancement of the gratuity amount. In terms of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the appeal was preferred by the petitioner herein challenging the said order. 10. During the pendency of the appeal, the ceiling limit of gratuity was enhanced from 10,00,000/- to 20,00,000/- and the relevant notification ₹ ₹ was brought on record by the respondent No.1, therefore, the Appellate Authority rightly enhanced the gratuity amount from 10,00,000/- to ₹ ₹20,00,000/-, thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the said finding. 5 11. However, with regard to the interest component, as no appeal was preferred by the respondent No.1 seeking grant of interest, there was no occasion for the Appellate Authority to award interest on the gratuity amount in favour of the respondent No.1. 12. The respondent No.1 has accepted the order of the Controlling Authority granting gratuity without interest, therefore, the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority with regard to grant of interest appears to be unreasonable and erroneous and warrants interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the petition preferred by the petitioner is allowed in part. The enhancement of gratuity from 10,00,000/- to 20,00,000/- is ₹ ₹ affirmed. However, the direction granting interest at the rate of 10% per annum is hereby set aside. 14. It is submitted that, out of the total amount of 20,00,000/-, a sum of ₹ ₹10,00,000/- has already been deposited before the Appellate Authority at the time of filing the appeal. The remaining amount of 10,00,000/- ₹ has already been paid to Respondent No. 1 pursuant to the sanction order dated 15.05.2024. Respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount, if it has not already been withdrawn. 15. In the result, the petition is allowed in part. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim