1 CGHC010005172022 2026:CGHC:36343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 1 of 2022 1. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2. Principal, Municipal Corporation Higher Secondary School, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Horilal Pandey, Peon (Retired), R/o Risaipara, Ward No.15, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2. Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Labour Commissioner, Office Of Labour Commissioner, Indravati Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Controlling Authority, Payment Of Gratuity Act And Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dr. Mahurkar Gali, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Ms. Subhi Yadav, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : None, in two rounds. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.08 .2026 1. The petitioner Corporation has filed this petition seeking following reliefs :- 10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the petitioner's case from the possession of the respondents for its kind SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.17 17:52:54 +0530 2 perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ setting aside the impugned order dated 22.10.2021 (Annexure P/1) and consequently, set aside the order dated 12.1.2021 (Annexure P/4). 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted along with cost of the petition. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as daily-rated employee under the petitioner on 31.12.1988. His services were regularized vide order dated 16.05.1997. He retired from services on 31.03.2017. The respondent No. 1 approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short “Act, 1972”) claiming therein gratuity amount inter alia on the ground that he rendered services for long 28 years. The petitioner herein appeared before the Controlling Authority and filed reply. A plea was taken that respondent No. 1/workman was not entitled to claim amount of gratuity for period he worked as daily-rated employee. The Controlling Authority applied law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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), and directed the petitioner herein to make payment of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 3,15,937/- as a sum of Rs. 2,28,450/- was already paid. The petitioner herein was directed to make payment of balance amount Rs. 84,487/-. The Controlling Authority also assessed amount of 10% interest to the tune of Rs. 34,495/-. 3. The petitioner herein assailed said order by filing an appeal. The Appellate 3 Authority under the Act of 1972 dismissed the appeal vide order dated 22.10.2021. The petitioner has challenged both the orders by filing this petition. 4. Ms. Subhi Yadav, Advocate would submit that the workman failed to substantiate that prior to date of regularization he was working with the department as daily-rated employee. She would contend 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 & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 was not referred, and therefore, matter has been referred to the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. She would submit that as matter is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the order passed by the Controlling Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority are bad in law. 5. I have heard Ms. Subhi Yadav, Advocate at length and perused the documents placed on record. 6. 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 and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2012) 11 SCC 321 held 4 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.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Netram Sahu(supra) held that 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. Relevant para17, 18 and 21 are reproduced herein-below :- 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 1 Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab,(2009) 13 SCC 608 2 Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 15 SCC 118 5 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. 21. These observations apply in full force against the State in this case because just case of the appellant was being opposed by the State on technical grounds. As a consequence, the appeal succeeds and in allowed. The impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) are set aside and the orders of the controlling authority and appellate authority are restored with costs of Rs. 25,000 payable by the State to the appellant. Costs to be paid by the State along with the payment of gratuity amount.” 8. Having considered the facts of the present case and concurrent findings recorded by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and law laid down in the matter of Netram Sahu(supra), no case is made out for interference, accordingly this petition 6 fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant