1 2026:CGHC:16999 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 111 of 2020 Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through The Chairman, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492013, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri S.N. Gupta, R/o- At- J-9, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) - 492006, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuityact And The Deputy Labour Commissioner (C), Government Of India, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Controlling Authority And The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amitesh Pandey, CGC Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dated 26.06.2019 & 19.02.2020. 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, according to the Service Rules and Regulations of the Bank, its employees are entitled to receive the amount of gratuity based solely on basic salary. He would contend that, after retirement, respondent No.1 moved an application for the payment of gratuity before the Controlling Authority and the concerned Authority calculated the amount of gratuity by adding basic salary and dearness allowance. He would further submit that the Appellate Authority affirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority. He would also submit that the issue is no more res integra and the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank through the Chairman vs. Arun Phansalkar and Others and other connected matters, reported in 2021 SCC Online Chh 473, held that the term ‘Pay’ means the basic pay. The relevant para 27 is reproduced herein below:- “27. In the above circumstances, the observations of the learned Single Judge in 'paragraph 20' of the judgment under challenge that "as in the case of an 'Employee', the framers of the Regulations could have also specifically said that the calculation of Gratuity for an Officer would be one month's of basic pay and other specific allowance" and so also, "the fact that they have not specifically held that it would be one month of 'basic pay' rather it is one month of 'pay' means there is a deliberate and conscious exclusion of term 'basic pay' from sub Clause 3 of Regulation 72 of the Regulations, so far as Officers are concerned", are not correct or sustainable. We also record our disapproval with the observation made by the learned Single Judge in 'paragraph 22' that "the emoluments that an officer was drawing would also have to be treated as part of the pay"; for the reason that the qualifying words under the 3rd limb of the definition 'Pay' under Regulation No. 2(m): 3 "which may be specifically classified as 'pay' under these Regulations" have been left out (which, in fact, is contained in case of 'Employees' under the 3rd proviso of the Regulation 72(3)); but conspicuously absent in the case of 'Officers' under the 2nd proviso to the same Regulation. For the very same reason, the observation made by the learned Single Judge in 'paragraph 26' that "the framers of the Regulations had taken the term 'Pay' in broader perspective rather than giving it restrictive or narrow meaning confined to the term basic pay" does not reflect the correct position. Same is the case with regard to the observations as to the Intention of the framers of the Regulations as given in 'paragraph 34' of the judgment.” 3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused orders impugned and judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. 4. Regulation 2(m) defines ‘Pay’ which means basic pay drawn per month by an officer or employee in a pay-scale including stagnation increments and any part of the emoluments which may specifically be classified as pay under these regulations. The definition of ‘Pay’ does not include dearness allowance and other allowances. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Arun Phansalkar (supra), in my opinion, the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act are not sustainable in the eyes of the law. Accordingly, both orders are hereby quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed this Court that the amount of gratuity, based on basic salary, has already been deposited with the 4 Controlling Authority thus respondent No.1 would be at liberty to withdraw the said amount if it has not been withdrawn. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim