1 2026:CGHC:16955 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1428 of 2025 1 - Smt. Aljeet Kujur W/o Shri Eliyajar Kujur Aged About 64 Years R/o House No. 306, Beladula Kharrahat, Ward No. 24 Raigarh, District Raigarh, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay Naya Raipur, District Raiput, (C.G.) 2 - Director (Pension), Urban Administration And Development Atal Nagar, Nava Raiput, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Municipal Corporation Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, District Raigarh, (C.G.) 4 - Principal, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel School Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, District Raigarh, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 For State : : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for the following reliefs: 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, direction, orders commanding and directing the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for granting of full gratuity, should also be given as the employees of the Municipal Corporation get. 10.2 Any other relief or reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner while working in the post of Lecturer stood retire form service with effect from 28.02.2023. The petitioner thereafter has not been paid the amount of gratuity however the amount of pension is being paid to the petitioner. He contended that according to his instructions, amount due has not been paid because, a criminal case is pending against the petitioner since 2016. He submits that in view of the facts of the case, petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh comprehensive representation and the concerned 3 authority be directed to consider and decide the same at the earliest, taking note of the decision in WPL no. 29/2017 Ram Yadav Vs. State of C.G. and others. 3. Learned counsel for the respective respondents submits that they are having no objection to the limited prayer. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. On due consideration and considering the submissions of the counsels for the respective parties, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation along with all supporting documents before concerned respondent and in the event, such representation is submitted, the same shall be consider and decide by the concerned respondent authority in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of representation keeping in mind the decision of Ram Yadav Vs. State of C.G. (supra). 6. Order accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Madhurima