2025:CGHC:56651 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI WPL No. 83 of 2023 Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.11.25 17:17:18 +0530

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 1 Was Not A Party Before The Learned Controlling Authority And Office Of The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No. 1 Herein As It Is Necessary To Implead The State Govt. Through The Secretary Of Concerned Department.) 2 - Director, Public Instruction Directorate, Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur .

3 - The District Education Officer, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Shri Bharatlal Sahu S/o Shri Jhadu Ram Sahu, R/o. Village Ratnabandha, Post Loharsi, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Applicant) 2 - The President/ Secretary, Shri Nathu Ram Moti Lal Sanskrit Primary School, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ( Non Applicant No. 2) 3 - The Controlling Authority, Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 Office Of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioners : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Swapnil Kesari on behalf of Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

Order on Board dated 20 /11/2025 This Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, CG (for short the “Controlling Authority”) in Appeal Case No. 09/PGA/2021 by which the Controlling Authority has assessed the gratuity payable to respondent No.1 who was working with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and retired on 31.07.2020, at Rs. 22,73,903/- with interest at Rs. 2,46,339 totalling the payable gratuity to Rs. 25,20,242/- along with monthly interest from the date of order which comes to be Rs. 18,949.19.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/State submits that the impugned order is bad in law. He submits that as in fact only 04 teachers were working with respondents No. 2 and 3, there was no question of payment of gratuity to respondent No.1 by the State.

3. Replying to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners, it has been averred by the counsel for respondent No.1 that the petitioners had the alternative remedy to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. He submits that identical issue has been decided by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in WPL No. 85/2023 (State of Chhattisgarh and others v. Smt. Vasumati Sharma and others) decided on 04.10.2023 and WPL No. 88 of 2023 (State of Chhattisgarh and others v. Smt. Usha Soni and others) decided on 07.07.2025, and being so this petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

5. The first contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that on account of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, this petition is not maintainable. For ready reference, the provision of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act reads as under:

“7(7). Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf. Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days: [Provided further that no appeal by an emplo