1 2026:CGHC:26744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 41 of 2022 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh.......... (The Petitioner No. 1 Was Not A Party Before The Appellate Court Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (Chhattisgarh) But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No. 1 In The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department) 2. Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Canal Water Management Division, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Janjgir Branch Canal, Sub Division No. 1, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus  Shri Sadanand Manikpuri S/o Shri Bandudas Manikpuri, R/o Janjgir, Ward No. 07, New Chandaniya Para, Tahsil Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent WPL No. 44 of 2022 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , Water Resources Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh. (The Petitioner No. 1 Was Not A Party Before The Appellate Court Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Labour Commissioner Office Of The Labour Commissioner , Chhattisgarh , Indrawati Bhawan , Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No. 1 In The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Canal Water Management Division, Janjgir 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Janjgir Branch Canal, Sub Division No. 1 ---Petitioner(s) SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.02 10:47:01 +0530 2 Versus  Shri Babulal Sahu S/o Late Shri Prahlad Sahu R/o Sarkho, Tahsil Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent WPL No. 43 of 2022 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , Water Resources Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh. (The Petitioner No. 1 Was Not A Party Before The Appellate Court Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1970 And Deputy Labour Commissioner Office Of The Labour Commissioner , Chhattisgarh , Indrawati Bhawan , Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No. 1 In The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department) 2. Executive Engineer Hasdeo Canal Water Management Division, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3. Sub Divisional Officer Champa Branch Canal Sub Division No. 1 Shivani (Champa) District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus  Shri Nain Singh Kshatriya S/o Late Shri Jhul Singh Kshatriya R/o B.D. Mahant Upnagar , New Chandaniya Para Ward No. 07 Janjgir Tahsil Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent WPL No. 46 of 2022 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) ( The Petitioner No. 1 Was Not A Party Before The Appellate Court Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Labour Commissioner Office Of The Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No. 1 In The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department ) 2. Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Canal Water Management Division, Janjgir 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Janjgir Branch Canal, Sub Division No. 1, ---Petitioner(s) Versus  Shri Shailendra Tiwari S/o Late Shri Salik Ram Tiwari, R/o Khokhasa, Tahsil Janjgir,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 --- Respondent WPL No. 47 of 2022 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) (The Petitioner No. 1 Was Not A Party Before The Appellate Court Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Labour Commissioner Office Of Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No. 1 In The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department ) 2. Executive Engineer Hasdeo Canal Water Management Division, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer Akaltara Branch Canal, Sub Division No. 8, Loharsi District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus  Shri Mahesh Ram Yadav S/o Late Shri Bhagat Ram Yadav, R/o Tundara Katgi, Tahsil Kasdol District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPL No. 42 of 2022 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (Chhattisgarh)... (The Petitioner No. 1 Was Not A Party Before The Appellate Court Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (Chhattisgarh) But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No. 1 In The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Canal Water Management Division, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Janjgir Branch Canal, Sub Division No. 1, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ---Petitioner(s) Versus  Shri Madan Kumar Mishra S/o Shivnandan Mishra, R/o Pragati Vihar Colony, House No. D-06, Bahatarai Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent WPL No. 48 of 2022 4 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Executive Engineer Hasdeo Canal Water Management Division, Janjgir. 3. Sub Divisional Officer Janjgir Branch Canal, Sub Division No.1. ---Petitioner(s) Versus  Shri Shiv Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri Ram Ji Mishra R/o Sarkho, Tahsil Janjgir., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent WPL No. 45 of 2022 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) ( The Petitioner No. 1 Was Not A Party Before The Appellate Court Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Labour Commissioner Office Of The Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No. 1 In The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department ), Chhattisgarh 2. Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Canal Water Management Division, Janjgir 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Janjgir Branch Canal, Sub Division No. 1, ---Petitioner(s) Versus  Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Babulal Mishra R/o Hardi (Jarwe), Tahsil Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent WPL No. 49 of 2022 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanasi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Canal Water Management Division, Janjgir 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Janjgir Branch Canal, Sub Division No.1, ---Petitioner(s) Versus  Shri Parasram Rathore S/o Late Shri Hariram Rathore R/o I.B. Road, Near Diwand School, Janjgir, Ward No. 19,, District : Janjgir-Champa, 5 Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Petitioners/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General For Respondents/Workmen : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.07 .2026 1. In these petitions, the petitioners/State have challenged the orders passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in different appeals, whereby, the appellate authority affirmed the orders passed by the controlling authority. 2. The issue involved in these batch of writ petitions is “Whether the workmen in instant cases would be entitled for payment of gratuity for service rendered by them as daily wage employees ?” 3. Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would argue that in the matter of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another reported in (2018) 5 SCC 430, (decided on 23.03.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the daily wage employees would be entitled for grant of gratuity for their service rendered on daily wage. He would further submit that similar relief was sought by one Dhansai Sahu and writ appeal No. 283 of 2016 preferred by him was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench and said order was assailed by Dhansai Sahu by filing SLP (Civil) No. 4790 of 2019 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the matter of Netram Sahu (supra) the judgments passed in the matter of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Jammu vs. Teja Singh, (decided on 16.01.2009 Civil Appeal No. 292/2009), Secretary, State of Karnataka & 6 Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 were not referred, and therefore, matter was referred to the larger Bench of three judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would submit that as matter is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, this batch of writ petition may be adjourned till decision is rendered in reference case. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate appearing for respondent(s)/workmen would contend that the issue involved in this batch of writ petitions is no more res integra. He would contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Netram Sahu (supra) categorically held that the daily wage employees would be entitled for amount of gratuity for period rendered by them as daily wage employees. He would further contend that pendency of reference to the larger Bench would not come in the way of deciding this batch of writ petitions as the issue involved cannot be kept pending till the larger Bench renders its decision. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the matter of Ashok Sadarangani and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2012) 11 SCC 321, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that pendency of a reference to a larger Bench, does not mean that all other proceedings involving the same issue would remain stayed till a decision was rendered in the reference. He would submit that these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. The issue involved in these batch of writ petitions has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Netram Sahu(supra) and the ratio has been relied upon by the Coordinate Bench in WPL No. 12 of 2019 7 parties being State of Chhattisgarh and Another vs. Smt. Rukhmani Bai Sahu and Others, wherein para 3, the Coordinate Bench held as under :- “3. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that, the said order of this High Court had been subsequently reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. [2018 5 SCC 430] in Civil Appeal No. 1254/2018 decided on 23/03/2018] wherein the Supreme Court while deciding the said issue in paragraphs No. 14, 16, 17 & 18 has held as under:- 14. We do not agree with this submission of learned counsel for the respondent-State for more than one reason. First, the appellant has actually rendered the service for a period of 25 years; Second, the State actually regularized his services by passing the order dated 06.05.2008; Third, having regularized the services, the appellant became entitled to claim its benefit for counting the period of 22 years regardless of the post and the capacity on which he worked for 22 years; Fourth, no provision under the Act was brought to our notice which disentitled the appellant from claiming the gratuity and nor any provision was brought to our notice which prohibits the appellant from taking benefit of his long and continuous period of 22 years of service, which he rendered prior to his regularization for calculating his continuous service of five years. 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 8 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. 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.” 9 7. It is not in dispute that the matter has already been referred to the larger Bench by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dhansai Sahu (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Sadarangani (supra) held that on the basis of pendency of a reference to a larger Bench, matter cannot be stayed till decision of said matter, and in para 29 held as under:- “29. As was indicated in Harbhajan Singh case1, the pendency of a reference to a larger Bench, does not mean that all other proceedings involving the same issue would remain stayed till a decision was rendered in the reference. The reference made in Gian Singh case2 need not, therefore, detain us. Till such time as the decisions cited at the Bar are not modified or altered in any way, they continue to hold the field.” 8. Having considered submissions advanced by respective Advocates and the issue involved, it can safely be held that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Netram Sahu (supra) still holds the field until it is modified or reversed by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. These batch of writ petitions cannot be kept pending for indefinite period on the ground that a reference is pending before the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. 10. The judgment passed in the reference shall be binding upon the parties and 1 Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab,(2009) 13 SCC 608 2 Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 15 SCC 118 10 the petitioners/State would be at liberty to file fresh writ petitions, if occasion arises. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant