Once daily wage services are regularized, the entire duration of service, including the daily wage period, must be counted for the calculation of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as it constitutes a statutory right of the employee.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:-

“(i) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to grant the gratuity for daily wage period (1981 to 31.12.1993) in view of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in cases (Supra) with in time bound manner along with 15% interest.”

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case as per the pleadings in the writ petition are that the petitioner was engaged as Storekeeper on daily wage basis, in the year, 1980 with the Irrigation and Public Health Department and completed 240 days’ in each calendar year w.e.f. 1981. Later on, his services were regularized and he was conferred work charge status as a Storekeeper on 01.01.1994. He now stands retired from service as Store Clerk on 31.03.2010 (Annexure P-1).

3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he has not been considered for payment of gratuity for daily wage period, for which, he is entitled to under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (For short “the Gratuity Act”) as well as law down by this Court in Lakshri Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and HPSEB and another versus Balak Ram and another, though he had made a representation. The payment of gratuity for daily wage service is statutory/legal right of the petitioner and the respondent Department is under obligation to pay the same and they cannot snatch the right of the petitioner.

4. The respondents filed reply to the petition and claimed that gratuity of daily wage period under the Gratuity Act, amounting to ₹8177/- has been paid to the petitioner and thus the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.

5. This Court on 28.10.2025 had directed the respondents to impart instructions as to whether the petitioner has received gratuity for regular service rendered from 01.01.1994 till his superannuation on 31.03.2010, under the provisions of CCS Pension Rules or not. In terms of the said order, the respondents have placed on record the instructions and disclosed that the entire amount of gratuity admissible for the period of regular service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1994 to 31.03.2010 has been paid. It has also been disclosed therein that initially gratuity of ₹1,49,622/- was authorized, which was subsequently revised to ₹1,59,044/- and thereafter to ₹1,79,529/-.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of gratuity as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2018) 5 SCC 430, wherein it has been held that the entire service including daily wage service is to be counted for grant of gratuity, once the daily wage service has been taken into account for regularization. He further argued that the Gratuity Act, being a welfare legislation intended for the benefit of employees, who have served the employer for a long period, casts a bounden duty upon the State to pay gratuity to the employee rather than deny the benefit on technical grounds and compel him/her to approach the Court.

7. Learned Advocate General for the respondents, on the other hand, has vehemently argued, that the issue regarding grant of gratuity, in view of the decision in Dhansai Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2020) 19 SCC 808, has been referred to a Larger Bench and since the matter is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter may be adjourned sine die.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

9. No doubt the matter has been referred to the Larger Bench, but as per the judgment passed in Netram Sahu’s case (supra), wherein the similar issue was raised, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ordered to count the entire service including daily wage service rendered by an employee for granting him the benefit of the gratuity under the Gratuity Act. Thus,