CWP-18892-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108 CWP-18892-2026 DATE OF DECISION: 10.07.2026 SALVINDER SINGH CHAHAL … Petitioner (s) Versus THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT ADSJ AND OTHERS ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner. KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1) The challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the impugned orders dated 06.05.2024 (Annexure P-2) and 20.03.2026 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Controlling Authority and the learned Appellate Authority respectively under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, U.T., Chandigarh, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of balance gratuity amount has been rejected. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner while narrating the brief factual background of the case, submits that the petitioner joined the respondent- management as a Field Officer on 17.07.1999 and worked continuously till 16.06.2010. During his service, his salary was increased from ₹5,000/- to ₹7,500/- and finally to ₹9,500/- per month. He also worked in different sister SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18892-2026 -2- concerns under the same management. In May 2010, the petitioner was transferred from Chandigarh to Ladowal, Ludhiana. At the time, the salary of the petitioner was reduced from ₹9,500/- to ₹5,000/- per month and his designation changed from Field Officer to Supervisor without any notice or justification. Subsequently, the petitioner resigned from service on 16.06.2010, which was accepted on 17.06.2010. Thereafter, the respondent- management paid only ₹37,972/- towards full and final settlement, by wrongly calculating gratuity on the reduced salary of ₹5,000/- instead of the petitioner's last drawn salary of ₹9,500/-. Despite repeated requests, the respondent- management did not pay the balance gratuity amount. 3) It is submitted that the petitioner filed a claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the Controlling Authority, U.T., Chandigarh seeking the balance gratuity amount of Rs.65,769/- along with interest. During the proceedings, the respondent-management admitted that the gratuity had been calculated on the basis of the reduced salary. However, the Controlling Authority dismissed the claim on 06.05.2024 holding that the petitioner had already received full and final settlement. The petitioner thereafter preferred a statutory appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 20.03.2026. Aggrieved by the orders passed by both the authorities, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 5) It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent-management on 17.07.1999 and remained in continuous service SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18892-2026 -3- till 16.06.2010. It is equally undisputed that the petitioner tendered his resignation on 16.06.2010, which came to be accepted on 17.06.2010. Having rendered continuous service for more than ten years, the petitioner became entitled to gratuity in terms of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 6) A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Authority reveals that a categorical finding has been recorded that the petitioner failed to produce any cogent documentary evidence to substantiate the averments made in his claim petition. It was further observed that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted a sum of Rs.37,972/- towards full and final settlement of his dues, which included the gratuity amount, and had executed the relevant settlement documents. Moreover, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner never raised any objection to the said full and final settlement, nor did he challenge the settlement. It was thereupon, after assessing the submissions made before it in light of the documentary evidence on record, the impugned order was passed by the learned Appellate Authority, which in the opinion of this Court does not suffer from any perversity. 7) Trite to say that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an appellate Court to re-appreciate factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or patent illegality, warranting any interference by this Court. 8) Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18892-2026 -4- present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed in limine. 9) Civil miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, are also disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 10, 2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document