1 CGHC010297122026 2026:CGHC:36177-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 758 of 2026 Chief Executive Ocer Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Ocer, Zila Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Shri Hemray Nishad S/o Bajnath Nishad Aged About 66 Years R/o Dhamansara, Post Surgi, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1&2/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No. 3 : None For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14/08/2026 1 Heard Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate 2 General for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2 Today, the matter is listed for hearing on IA No. 1/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 73 days in preferring this appeal. However, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard ?nally. 3 Challenge in this appeal ?led under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, is to the order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7318/2024 by which the petition ?led by the writ petitioner (respondent No. 4 herein) was disposed of directing the Collector, Rajnandgaon to conclude the proceedings as forwarded to him by the Controlling Authority under the provisions of Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the order. 4 In the present appeal, the appellant has prayed for the following relief(s): “i. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the case of the present Appellant for its kind perusal. ii. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Appellant’s writ appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 30/03/2026 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court in WP(S) No. 7318/2024, in the interest of justice. Iii. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems 1t and proper in the case may also be granted.” 5 The writ petitioner (respondent No. 4 herein) was an employee of the appellant-Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon and was working as 3 Panchayat Secretary. The writ petitioner stood retired from service after attaining age of superannuation on 31.01.2020. On the date of his superannuation he was getting salary of Rs. 31,064 per month, however, as the writ petitioner was not paid the amount of gratuity, he ?led an application under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, the Act of 1972) before Controlling Authority under the Act of 1972. The application submitted by writ petitioner was allowed and the gratuity of sum of Rs. 4,30,116 was computed to be paid to him along with interest @ 10% from 04.02.2011 till its realization. When the amount as computed by the Controlling Authority was not paid to writ petitioner or deposited with the concerned authority, the writ petitioner submitted another application under Section 8 of the Act of 1972. After receipt of application under Section 8, the Controlling Authority wrote letter to the Collector/respondent No. 2 for recovery of amount of gratuity computed as arrears of land revenue. The letter was written on 05.07.2024, however, since the Collector could not conclude the proceedings in terms of Section 8 of the Act of 1972, the writ petitioner ?led a petition before the learned Single Judge wherein he had prayed that the respondent No. 3 as well as the appellant be directed to pay the gratuity amount with interest and further to direct the respondent No. 2/Collector to recover gratuity amount as per the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the Controlling Authority from the respondent No. 3 and the appellant. 6 The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to conclude the proceedings as forwarded to him by the Controlling Authority under Section 8 of the Act of 1972 in accordance with law within a period of four months. 4 7 Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant submitted a comprehensive return before the learned Single Judge, explicitly stating that the appellant is a statutory body bound by strict provincial ?nancial regulations and allocations, and cannot disburse funds from its internal accruals without explicit administrative approval and budgetary sanction from the Directorate of Panchayat and further stated that the matter was duly forwarded to the higher authorities via formal communications dated 22.11.2023 and 18.03.2024, seeking appropriate guidance, statutory clarity, and the allocation of special funds required to satisfy the award passed by the Controlling Authority. The learned Single Judge failed consider the return/reply ?led by the appellant and without fully evaluating the structural legal impediments and the structural limits of state welfare schemes, passed the impugned order directing the execution proceedings to be concluded within a strict time frame of four months. 8 Mr. Sharma submits that the service of the writ petitioner (respondent No.4 herein) and other similarly situated Panchayat Karmis are governed by the circular/guideline governing conditions of service of Panchayat Karmis issued by the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Government of Chhattisgarh, vide covering letter dated 29.08.2008 wherein, nowhere it has been mentioned that the Panchayat Karmis are entitled to get the Gratuity amount on the occasion of their retirement and since the service rules governing the writ petitioner/respondent No.4 does not provide so, he is not entitled to get the bene?ts of the same. On 05.10.2023, the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Government of Chhattisgarh, issued an order/circular whereby the bene?ts of the gratuity have been extended to the Panchayat Secretaries who have completed the minimum 5 years before their retirement. 5 However; it would be relevant to mention here that the order dated 05.10.2023 issued by the State Government has no retrospective eHect and it shall be applicable only to those Panchayat Secretaries, who have retired after the appointed day of 01.10.2023 as already mentioned in order/circular, which is the enforcement date of the order/circular. Since the writ petitioner retied on 31.01.2020 and further the rules governing the services of the writ petitioner has not provided the bene?t of the gratuity, as such, he is not entitled to get the bene?t of the order/circular dated 05.10.2023, which has no retrospective eHect. Prior to the introduction of the circular of 05/10/2023 there existed no legal framework, administrative scheme, or statutory provision governing the payment of gratuity bene?ts to Panchayat Secretaries in the State of Chhattisgarh. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that respondent No. 2, the Collector Rajnandgaon, had also forwarded the matter to the necessary action via competent authority for communication dated 23.07.2024, demonstrating that the release of the amount is strictly dependent on the administrative mechanisms and ?nancial sanctions of the State Government. The impugned order directing the execution proceedings to be concluded within a strict time frame of four months is unsustainable in law as it compels a statutory authority to make ?nancial disbursements in total violation of prevailing provincial ?nancial rules and in the absolute absence of a sanctioned budget allocation from the competent State authorities. 9 On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2/State submits that the order impugned in this appeal directs the respondent No. 2 to make recoveries from the appellant as arrears of land revenue, however, the Collector, Rajnandgaon has written to the Director, Directorate of 6 Panchayat for allotment of funds so that the payment could be made to the writ petitioner. 10 Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel for the writ petitioner (respondent No. 4 herein) submits that once the Controlling Authority under the Act of 1972 has issued directions, the respondent No. 2/Collector ought to have complied it in its letter and spirit and there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 11 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and materials available on record. 12 At the outset, we shall consider the application for condonation of delay. The present writ appeal has been preferred with a delay of 73 days. Though the appellant has sought condonation of the said delay, from the explanation furnished in the application, we are not satis?ed that the appellant has disclosed sucient and satisfactory cause which prevented it from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period. The impugned order was passed on 30.03.2026 and the appellant, having been a party to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge, was well aware of the order and the directions issued therein. The explanation oHered does not disclose any circumstance of such nature as would constitute sucient cause for condoning the delay of 73 days. It is well settled that though the expression "sucient cause" occurring in the law of limitation is required to receive a liberal and justice-oriented construction, such liberal approach cannot be extended to cases where the explanation is vague, casual or does not satisfactorily account for the entire period of delay. A litigant seeking condonation of delay is required to explain the delay with reasonable diligence. In the present case, the appellant has 7 failed to satisfy us that it had acted with due diligence in pursuing the remedy of appeal. 13 Even otherwise, having heard learned counsel for the parties on merits, we ?nd no substance in the challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The undisputed facts borne out from the record are that the writ petitioner, who was working as Panchayat Secretary under the appellant-Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2020. He thereafter approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 seeking payment of gratuity. The Controlling Authority, after consideration of the claim, passed an order dated 20.10.2023 computing the amount of gratuity payable to the writ petitioner at Rs.4,30,116/- together with interest at the rate of 10% from 04.02.2011 till realization. The said order passed by the Controlling Authority has not been shown to have been successfully challenged by the appellant in accordance with law. Thus, the entitlement of the writ petitioner to the amount determined by the Controlling Authority and the quantum thereof cannot be permitted to be reopened indirectly in the present proceedings, particularly when the present appeal is directed only against an order of the learned Single Judge requiring the Collector to proceed with recovery under Section 8 of the Act of 1972. 14 Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides a speci?c mechanism for recovery of gratuity which has been determined as payable and has not been paid by the employer. Upon the requisite steps being taken by the Controlling Authority, the amount becomes recoverable in accordance with the statutory mechanism contemplated under the said provision. The learned Single Judge has not directed the 8 appellant to make any payment dehors the statutory order or to make any fresh determination of entitlement. The direction is con?ned to requiring the Collector to conclude the proceedings already forwarded to him by the Controlling Authority under Section 8 of the Act of 1972, in accordance with law. 15 The principal submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is a statutory body and is bound by ?nancial rules and that payment could not be made in the absence of administrative approval, budgetary sanction or allotment of funds by the competent authority. We are unable to accept the said submission as a ground for interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge. Financial constraints or the requirement of obtaining administrative sanction cannot, by themselves, defeat or inde?nitely postpone a statutory liability which has already been determined by the competent authority under the Act of 1972. The appellant cannot avoid implementation of the order passed by the Controlling Authority merely by contending that funds are required to be allotted by a higher authority. The inter se administrative process for arranging or allotting funds is a matter between the appellant and the competent authorities and cannot prejudice the statutory right of the writ petitioner to receive the amount already determined in his favour. The further submission that the service conditions applicable to Panchayat Karmis did not contain any provision for payment of gratuity and that the Government order/circular dated 05.10.2023 is prospective in operation, also does not persuade us to interfere with the impugned order. These submissions go to the very entitlement of the writ petitioner to gratuity. Such a contention, after the Controlling Authority has already adjudicated the claim and determined the amount payable, cannot be raised collaterally in proceedings arising out of the execution/recovery of the 9 amount determined by the competent authority, particularly when the said order has not been shown to have been set aside in appropriate proceedings. 16 It is also signi?cant that the learned Single Judge has not directed immediate disbursement of the amount by ignoring the statutory procedure. The direction issued is to respondent No.2/Collector to conclude the proceedings forwarded by the Controlling Authority under Section 8 of the Act of 1972, in accordance with law, preferably within four months. Thus, the order under challenge merely facilitates implementation of the statutory recovery mechanism and does not create any fresh liability against the appellant. 17 The correspondence relied upon by the appellant, including the communications dated 22.11.2023, 18.03.2024 and the subsequent communication of the Collector dated 23.07.2024, also does not advance the case of the appellant. Rather, these communications demonstrate that the authorities were conscious of the liability and were seeking administrative steps for release of the amount. Administrative correspondence cannot be treated as a substitute for compliance with a statutory obligation or as a justi?cation for keeping the recovery proceedings pending inde?nitely. 18 The learned Additional Advocate General has also submitted that the Collector has already taken steps by writing to the Director, Directorate of Panchayat, seeking allotment of funds for payment to the writ petitioner. This submission further indicates that there is no legal impediment in proceeding with the recovery in terms of Section 8 of the Act of 1972. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, committed no error in directing conclusion of the proceedings within a reasonable time. 10 19 We are, therefore, of the considered view that the appellant has failed to make out any ground warranting interference in intra-Court appellate jurisdiction. The impugned order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge is legal, proper and does not suHer from any in?rmity warranting interference. 20 The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Chandra / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.08.17 13:58:43 +0530