1 CGHC010256082015 2026:CGHC:28034 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 100 of 2015 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Executive Officer, Maniyari Water Resources Division, Mungeli, Post And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shri Holiram Sahu S/o Late Shri Saniram Sahu, R/o Village Charbhata, Post Kodva, Police Station And Tahsil Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Appellate Authority, Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Labour Commissioner, Office Of The Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, 2nd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)/State : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. S. P. Kale, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 07/07/2026 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 22.09.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, whereby the appeal preferred by petitioner No.2 was dismissed and the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Controlling Authority directing payment of gratuity to respondent No.1 was affirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 was appointed as a daily wage employee on 01.07.1978, thereafter, he was granted appointment on regular basis on 14.08.2008. Respondent No.1 retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2012. Subsequently, on 25.02.2013, respondent No.1 filed an application under the Payment of Gratuity Act claiming gratuity by counting the period of service rendered by him as a daily wage employee. The Controlling Authority, vide order dated 12.02.2014, allowed the application and directed payment of gratuity amounting to Rs.1,68,488/- in favour of respondent No.1, against which, petitioner No.2 preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide the impugned order dated 22.09.2014, holding that respondent No.1 is entitled to payment of gratuity by including his period of service rendered as a daily wage employee. 3 3. Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/petitioner(s) would submit that though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another, reported in (2018) 5 SCC 430, held that an employee is entitled to count the period of service rendered on daily wages for payment of gratuity after regularization, the correctness of the said decision has subsequently been referred to a larger Bench in Dhansai Sahu (supra). He would contend that the present petition deserves to be kept pending till the larger Bench decides the issue. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Kale, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, would submit that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision rendered in Netram Sahu (supra), which continues to hold the field. He would further submit that merely because the matter has been referred to a larger Bench, the present petition cannot be adjourned indefinitely. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Sadarangani Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2012) 11 SCC 321. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The issue involved in this writ petition 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 4 Bench in WPL No. 12 of 2019 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 claiming the gratuity amount subject to his proving continuous service of 5 years 5 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.” 7. It is not in dispute that the issue has been referred to a larger Bench in Dhansai Sahu (supra). However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Sadarangani (supra) has held as under:- 6 "29. As was indicated in Harbhajan Singh case, 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... 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. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, this Court is of the opinion that the decision rendered in the matter of Netram Sahu (supra) continues to be binding and governs the present case. Since respondent No.1 had initially served as a daily wage employee, was subsequently regularized, and thereafter retired from service, the authorities below have rightly held him entitled to gratuity by counting his entire qualifying service. Consequently, there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 22.09.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Controlling Authority directing payment of gratuity of Rs.1,68,488/- to respondent No.1. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE NADIM