Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5484 (CHH)

BUDH RAM MESHRAM v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/8583/2022 · 2026-04-01

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:15332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8583 of 2022 1. Budh Ram Meshram S/o Late Manik Chand Aged About 70 Years R/o. Shankar Nagar, Ward No. 10, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 2. Guni Ram Sahu S/o Ledga Ram Sahu Aged About 64 Years R/o. Sindhi Colony, Ward No. 27, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Directorate, Urban Administration Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Deputy Director, Pension, Urban Administration Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.04 .2026 1. Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar would fairly submit that there is efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioner to approach the Controlling authority according to the provisions of Section 7(4)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. He would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.02 17:36:08 +0530 2 withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the Controlling authority. He would submit that a direction may be issued to the authority concerned to decide it in accordance with the law. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. 3. Heard. 4. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Mr. Dhurandhar, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedy available under the law. If the petitioner prefers an application before the Controlling authority, it is expected that the said authority shall decide it strictly in accordance with the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant