1 2026:CGHC:16798-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1455 of 2026 1 - D.P. Sharaf (In Person) S/o Late K. Anand Sharaf, Aged About 69 Years, Block- 15, Ward No-15, T.P. Nagar, Korba Tehsil and District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - High Court of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur (C.G.) Through- Registrar General Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Petitioner D.P. Sharaf in person. For Respondent : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13-04-2026 1. Heard the petitioner in person. Also heard Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for following relief(s):- “10-1 ;g fd tks i{kdkj LFkxu vkns’k@,d i{kh; LFkxu vkns’k izkIr djrk gS] mlds fy;s ;g fu;e cus fd ;fn Hkfo"; esa mldk izdj.k [kkfjt gksrk gS] rks ;kfpdk vkosnu izLrqr djus ds fnukad ls cktkj ewY; ds Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.04.20 18:40:10 +0530 2 fglkc ls ykHk fo#) i{kdkj dks Hkqxrku djsxkA 10-2 ;g fd fdlh fMdzh/ku ds laca/k esa LFkxu@,d i{kh; LFkxu] vfrfjDr vkns’k izkIr djrk gS] rks fMdzh/ku ij 25 izfr’kr pdzo`f) C;kt ds lkFk fojks/kh i{kdkj dks Hkqxrku djsaA 10-3 lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226¼3½ dk ifjikyu N-x-mPp U;k;ky; ds vf/kdkj {ks= ds lHkh U;k;ky;ksa v)ZU;kf;d U;k;ky;] laLFkk ,oa ,Sls izkf/kdkfj;ksa ij ykxw fd;k tkos tks fdlh ,DV ds v/khu fu.kZ;@vkns’k tkjh djus dk vf/kdkj ,oa LFkxu vkns’k tkjh djus ds vf/kdkj dk iz;ksx djrs gSA 10-4 vU; dksbZ vkns’k@funsZ’k fu;e cuk;k tkos tks ekeys dks ns[krs gq, ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>sA vFkok 10-5 lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226¼3½ dks vYVªkok;jl djkj djds N-x-mPp U;k;ky; ds vf/kdkj {ks= ds fy;s vlaoS/kkfud ?kksf"kr djus dh d`ik djsaA” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an ex-employee of the South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and he retired on 30-06-2017 after attaining age of superannuation from the post of Chief Store Keeper. Earlier there was a dispute between him and the employer with respect to vacation of the official quarter allotted to him and the amount of gratuity payable to him. The petitioner filed an application for payment of gratuity before the Controlling authority and the regional Labour Commissioner Bilaspur. The said application was allowed on 14-03-2018 and the employer SECL was directed to pay the gratuity amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 10% from the date of retirement till the actual payment. The petitioner as well as 3 the employer SECL preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Both the appeals, i.e., the appeal filed by the petitioner and the appeal filed by the employer SECL were dismissed, however, the petitioner had not challenged the dismissal of his appeal, but the employer SECL had challenged the dismissal of their appeal before this Court in WPL No.145/2019. In the said writ petition an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 01-07-2019 and the payment of interest part on the principal amount was stayed. It is also case of the petitioner that after granting ex-parte interim order by learned Single Judge of this Court, the provisions under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India has not been complied with and the copy of the interim order has not been supplied to the petitioner. On 30-07-2019 the petitioner filed an application in WPL No.145/2019 for vacating the interim order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the same was remained pending and has not been decided within 14 days of its filing as mandated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further case of the petitioner that the coordinate Bench of this Court has already ordered vide its order dated 04-09-2019 in Writ Appeal No. 365/2019 wherein Hon’ble Division Bench has directed the Registry to list all the applications, filed under the provision of Article 226(3)(b) of the Constitution of India, immediately after receiving the same for its hearing before the Court, yet the application filed by the petitioner has not been listed and it was remained pending. On 09-01-2020 when the matter was listed for hearing it was adjourned on the request of the 4 State counsel. On 18-08-2025 the petitioner again moved an application and raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition and for payment of interest amount as ordered by the Labour Court. The matter was thereafter repeatedly listed on 22-09-2025, 26-11-2025, 01-12- 2025, 20-01-2026 and 02-03-2026, however on 02-03-2026 without affording proper opportunity of hearing the WPL No.145/2019 has been decided and it has been dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition the learned Single Judge has disposed of the pending applications, i.e., the application dated 30-07-2019 and 18-08-2025. It is further case of the petitioner that despite the order passed in Writ Appeal No.365/2019 with respect to listing of all the applications filed under Article 226(3)(b) of the Constitution of India, the same has not been complied with by the Registry of this Court and numerous applications of various litigants are pending and since the amount ordered by the Labour Court has not been paid to the petitioner without any lawful authority and without complying the provisions of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid direction. 4. The petitioner submits that despite order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.365/2019 the orders are not complying with the Registry of this Court and matters in which the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India are being filed are not listing for hearing before the courts within the stipulated time. He would further submit that despite constitutional provisions and order passed by Division Bench, if the mandate are not complying with, 5 there would be no purpose to keep the provision alive. Despite making an application on 30-07-2019 and raising objection with respect to non- compliance of the provision under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India his case was not listed for hearing. Even his application for vacating the interim order filed on 07-06-2025 has not been considered and the matter has been finally decided on 02-03-2026 that too without affording proper time of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the relief sought by the petitioner may be granted to him. He would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 INSC 150. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on advance copy would submit that the writ petition filed in the present form and claimed relief is not maintainable. The petitioner has craved his personal grievance, however the relief claimed in 10.3 of the writ petition is in the form of involving nature of Public Interest Litigation. He would also submit that there is already direction passed by the Hon’ble coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.365/2019 decided on 04-09-2019 in which the Registry has already been directed to list all the applications filed under the provisions of Article 226(3)(b) of the Constitution of India, immediately after receiving the same for its hearing before the court. For the personal grievance of the petitioner the provision under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India cannot be declared ultra vires. He would also submit that though the writ petition filed by the employer SECL, WPL No.145/2019 could not be listed 6 periodically, however, the said writ petition is presently dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 02-03-2026 and as per his instructions no appeal has been filed by any of the parties, since the writ petition filed by the employer SECL has already been dismissed, interim order also stands merged and loses its effect and now the claim of the petitioner that in that writ petition his application was not listed for hearing within the stipulated time is also having no force. He would also submit that the petitioner was also heard when WPL No.145/2019 was decided on 02-03-2026. He would also submit that under the facts and circumstances of the case the present writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. It is not in dispute that WPL No.145/2019 is presently dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 02-03-2026 in which vide order dated 01-07-2019 the payment of interest on the principal amount of gratuity was stayed. In the said WPL No.145/2019 the petitioner made an application on 30-07-2019 for vacating the ex-parte interim order dated 01-07-2019. It is also not in dispute that the present petitioner earlier filed WA No.365/2019 against the order dated 24-06-2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No.1961/2019 in which the coordinate Bench of this Court has directed the Registry to list all the applications, filed under the provisions of Article 226(3)(b) of the Constitution of India, immediately after receiving the same for its hearing before the Court. That order dated 04-09-2019 passed in Writ 7 Appeal No.365/2019 has not been challenged or modified in any other proceeding. It is relevant here to take notice of para 14 of the order dated 04-09-2019 passed in Writ Appeal No.365/2019, which is as under:- “14. In view of the above observation, we do not find any error in the order passed by learned single Judge in WP(C) No. 1961/2019. In view of the constitutional mandate provided under the Constitution of India, we direct that WP(L) No. 67/2019 to be listed forthwith to the concerned Court as per the roster. We further direct the registry to list all the applications, filed under the provisions of Article 226(3)(b) of the Constitution of India, immediately after receiving the same for its hearing before the Court. Copy of the order be circulated to all the dealing assistance/listing clerks in all sections of the registry who deals with the records of writ petition. 8. The judgment cited by the petitioner, High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra) is distinguishable on the facts of the present case and no benefit can be extended to him by the said judgment. 9. Relief claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition is completely unjust for the reason that a party to proceeding cannot be held liable for any damages in routine manner if he fails to prove its case. Mere failure to prove a case does not justify awarding damages. Further, the relief as claimed in 10.3 of the writ petition also cannot be sustainable in view of the fact that if judicial, quasi-judicial and other authorities have their own jurisdiction under the relevant applicable laws with respect to facts of each case and the provision of Article 226(3) of 8 the Constitution cannot be universally applicable to all sub-ordinate authorities on a common passage. 10. Further, the writ petition filed by the employer SECL has already been dismissed and the grievance of the petitioner, that his application filed on 30-07-2019 in that writ petition has not been considered within time, also cannot be considered at this stage as the writ petition has already been dismissed. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil