1 2026:CGHC:18871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3540 of 2026 1 - Nain Sai Kariyam And Others S/o Rurha Kariyam Aged About 67 Years Retired Labour, R/o Shivnagar Surajpur District Surajpur C.G. 2 - Chertu Ram S/o Geda Ram Aged About 81 Years R/o Village Kathmunda, Post Dandgaon District Udaipur C.G. 3 - Smt, Shanti W/o Late Banthulal Mainkpuri Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Salka, Premnagar, District Surajpur C.G. 4 - Smt, Jhamako, W/o Late Shivnath, Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Jajge, Surguja District Udaipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Work Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya ,nawa, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Chief Engineer, Public Work Department Surguja Circle Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. 3 - Superintendent Endine Publice Work Department Circle Abmikapur, District Surguja C.G. 4 - Executive Engineer, Public Work Department Bha/sadak Disvision Ambikapur District Surguja C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.04.28 13:41:30 +0530 2 For Respondents-State : Mr. Shahil Singh, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 24/04/2026 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the direction for the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of gratuity. 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the direction for the respondents' authorities to grant interest on delay payment of gratuity. 10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners is covered with the decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 378 of 2016 and other connected matters. Petitioners had submitted representation before respondents No. 2 to 4, which is pending consideration and therefore, at this stage, direction be issued to respondents No. 2 to 4 to consider and take decision on the representation submitted by the petitioners, at the earliest, in the light of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 378 of 2016. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioners, he is having no objection. 3 4. On due consideration of submission of counsel for the parties, writ petition at this stage is disposed of permitting the petitioners to submit fresh representation before respondents No. 2 to 4 along with all supporting documents and in the event of submitting such representation, respondents No. 2 to 4 shall consider and take decision on the same, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within further period of three months from the date of receipt of the Order, keeping in mind the decision of Division Bench of this Court passed in WA No. 378 of 2016. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi