CWP No. 20950 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (115) CWP No. 20950 of 2026 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 Raj Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Dr. Jaiveer Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order 30.5.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Bhiwani, whereby the gratuity claim of the petitioner was decided on the basis of his initial salary instead of his last drawn salary, and the order dated 26.5.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.5.2025 was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the office of District Protect Coordinator SSA Rewari vide HPSPP letter No. 1305 to 1307-SSA dated 25.7.2003 on contract basis, and joined his duties on 31.7.2023. Subsequently, after completion of more than 18 years and 07 months of service, the petitioner retired on 28.2.2022. It is submitted that despite repeated requests by the GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.17 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 20950 of 2026 -2- petitioner and the service of legal notice dated 07.6.2023, the respondent- employer neither paid the gratuity to the petitioner nor got deposited the amount of gratuity with the office concerned. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was allowed by the Controlling Authority on 30.5.2025 (Annexure P-1). Against the said order, the petitioner filed a review application, which was dismissed by the Controlling Authority concerned on 30.12.2025. Moreover, the respondents concerned had filed an appeal against the order dated 30.5.2025 (Annexure P-1), which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Hisar vide order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, the petitioner also filed an appeal against the order dated 30.5.2025 (Annexure P-1), which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 26.5.2026 (Annexure P-5). Learned counsel submits that although the Controlling Authority vide impugned order dated 30.5.2025 (Annxure P-5) has rightly held that the petitioner was entitled to gratuity, however, it committed a patent error in calculating the gratuity amount on the basis of the petitioner's initial contractual salary of Rs. 10,130/- per month, instead of his last drawn wages, which as per the last pay certificate of the petitioner, were Rs. 34,984/- per month. Learned counsel further submits that the appellate authority, before which the petitioner had sought to place on record his pay slips for the purpose of computation of gratuity, also wrongly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and are liable to be set aside. 3. Notice of motion to respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 at this stage only. 4. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. DAG, GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.17 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 20950 of 2026 -3- Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 4-State. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the present petition and submits that the findings recorded by the authorities concerned do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that in the initial claim petition filed by the petitioner, he neither pleaded nor proved his last drawn salary. Accordingly, vide impugned order dated 30.5.2025 (Annexure P-1), the Controlling Authority computed the gratuity on the basis of the material available on record. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 30.7.2025 along with record of his last pay/salary before the Controlling Authority concerned seeking review of the order dated 30.5.2025. However, the said application was dismissed by the authority concerned by observing that it has no power to review its own order. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which also dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.5.2026 (Annexure P-5). In the said impugned order, the Appellate Authority observed that the order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) had already been upheld by the Appellate Authority vide its earlier order dated 24.12.2025, passed in the appeal preferred by the respondents, to which the petitioner was a party and which he had duly contested. It was thus held that consequently, the said order had attained finality and the petitioner could not be permitted to challenge the same in a subsequent appeal particularly when he had not exercised his remedy at the relevant time by filing a cross appeal. It was further held that, under the guise of the present appeal, the petitioner GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.17 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 20950 of 2026 -4- essentially sought a review of the order dated 24.12.2025, which was not permissible under law. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the authorities concerned are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. 9. 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. 10. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 14th, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.17 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh