Allowed

Smt. Padmini Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Aug 2023WPL/104/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a writ petition wherein the wife of a deceased government employee sought restoration of a gratuity award. Relying on Netram Sahu, the Court set aside the appellate authority's order and directed the State to pay the gratuity amount.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Controlling Authority order restored; State directed to pay gratuity with interest within four months.

Smt. Padmini Pandey Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPL No. 104 of 2017

¶5

Smt. Padmini Pandey, W/o Late Janakram Pandey, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Nagar Panchayat Pandatarai, Police Station Pandatarai, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Executive Engineer, Hasdev Barradge Water Management Division, Rampur, Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

(Cause title taken from Court Information System)

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For State/Respondents : Ms. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board

¶14

17/08/2023

¶15

1 . Heard Mr. S.P. Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Binu Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents.

¶16

2 . Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, is that the petitioner is wife of Late Janakram Pandey, who was working as Helper with Respondent Department from 01.03.1983 til his death on 14.03.2010. The services of Late Janakram Pandey were regularized on 22.08.2008 on the said post and before he get superannuated, he left for

¶17

¶18

heavenly abode 14.03.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner – wife filed an application before Controlling Authority under the provision of Gratuity Act and sought relief of gratuity from respondent for spend period of 27 years. The Controlling Authority, vide order dated 06.06.2016 (Annexure P-2), directed the respondents-State to pay gratuity amount of Rs.1,95,170/-, which was challenged by the respondent authorities before the Appellate Authority and vide order dated 03.03.2017, the Appellate Authority allowing the appeal set aside the order of Controlling Authority. Hence, this petition with the following prayers :-

¶19

“10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire record of the case for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

¶20

10.2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 03.03.2017 passed in appeal Case No.40/PGA/16 by Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Raipur.

¶21

10.3 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent authority to pay retiral gratuity to the petitioner with 12% interest.”

¶22

3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case of the petitioner squarely covers by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the matter of Netram Sahu

¶23

V. State of Chhattisgarh reported in AIR 2018 SC 1545

¶24

¶25

and, therefore, the present case may be decided in the light of observation made in said judgment.

¶26

4 . Learned State counsel opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner but she fairly submits that the case of the present petitioner is identical to that of the case of Netram (supra).

¶27

5 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶28

6 . Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Netram (supra) held in paras 12, 13, 19 and 20, which read thus :-

¶29

“12. It is not in dispute that the appellant has actually rendered the total service for a period of 25 years 3 months, i.e. from 01.04.1986 to 30.07.2011 to the State. It is also not in dispute that the appellant’s services were regularized by the State by order dated 06.05.2008, i.e. much prior to the appellant attained the age of superannuation. It is also not in dispute that the appellant’s 25 years and 3 months period of service satisfied the rigor of the expression “continuous service” as defined under Section 2-A of the Act.

¶30

13. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-State was that the appellant could not be held eligible to claim the gratuity amount because out of the total period of 25 years of his service, he worked 22 years as daily wager and only 3 years as regular

¶31

¶32

employee. It is for this reason, the learned counsel urged that the appellant could not be said to have worked continuously for a period of 5 years as provided under the Act so as to make him eligible to claim gratuity.

¶33

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we cannot agree with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court which is legally unsustainable. It is really unfortunate that the genuine claim of the appellant was being denied by the State at every stage of the proceedings up to this Court and dragged him in fruitless litigation for all these years.

¶34

20. Indeed, this reminds us of the apt observation made by the Chief Justice M.C. Chagla (as he then was) in the case of Firm Kaluram Sitaram v. The Dominion of India (AIR 1954 Bombay 50). The learned Chief Justice in his distinctive style of writing while deciding the case between an individual citizen and the State made the following pertinent observations

¶35

¶36

“Now, we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily reply on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent Judges, as an honest person.”

¶37

¶38

7 . In the present case also, it is not disputed that the petitioner’s husband late Janakram Pandey was appointed on 01.03.1983 and has actually rendered total service for a period of 27 years. It is also not in dispute that the services of petitioner’s husband were regularized on 22.08.2008 and he died on 14.03.2010.

¶39

8 . Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, which is almost identical to that of the case of Netram (supra), the instant petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 03.03.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act is set aside and order dated 06.06.2016 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Controlling Authority is restored.

¶40

9 . The respondent authorities are directed to release/pay the gratuity amount to the petitioner as determined by the Controlling Authority within four months from the date of this order.

¶41

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶42

pkd

Smt. Padmini Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Padmini Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fatte Lal Choudhari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Yogendra Singh Vs Union Of India and Ors.

Smt. Anusuiya Yadav Vs Rahul Yadav

Mohan Lal Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ashwani Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagbali Dhritlahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh