2025:CGHC:56412 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 86 of 2023

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Raipur District 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. The Director, Public Instruction Directorate, Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The District Education Officer District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus

1. Smt. Manda Babar W/o Shri Anil Babar, R/o Village Marathapara, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (….Applicant)

2. The President/secretary, Arya Shikshan Samiti, Agnideo Arya Kanya Pri. School Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

(Applicant No.2)

3. The Controling Authority, Under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Office Of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Shri R.K. Gupta, Additional AG For Respondent : Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate No.1 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

Order on Board dated 19/11/2025 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. 13/PGA/2020 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 31.01.2016, at Rs. 11,88,162.00 with interest at Rs. 06,73,291.80 totalling the payable gratuity to Rs. 18,61,454.00 along with monthly interest from the date of order which comes to be Rs. 9,901.35.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/State submits that the impugned order is bad in law. He submits that as in fact only 05 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 employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either