Dismissed¶¶27

Salvinder Singh Chahal v. the Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act Adsj and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jul 2026CWP/18892/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-18892-2026; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Kirti Singh, J.; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Section 7(7) statutory appeal; Controlling Authority; Appellate Authority; balance gratuity Rs.65,769/-; full and final settlement Rs.37,972/-; gratuity on reduced salary Rs.5,000/- vs last drawn Rs.9,500/-; Articles 226/227 writ; no re-appreciation of factual findings; perversity; jurisdictional error; writ dismissed in limine; Chandigarh; decision 10.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Having rendered continuous service for more than ten years (17.07.1999 to 16.06.2010), the petitioner became entitled to gratuity in terms of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. ¶¶21

Salvinder Singh Chahal Vs the Appellate… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's claim for payment of the balance gratuity amount was rightly rejected by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. +1 more

¶¶11

Court's answer

Having rendered continuous service for more than ten years (17.07.1999 to 16.06.2010), the petitioner became entitled to gratuity in terms of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order of the Appellate Authority - which recorded that the petitioner produced no cogent documentary evidence and had voluntarily accepted Rs.37,972/- towards full and final settlement of dues including gratuity without raising any objection or challenging the settlement - does not suffer from any perversity.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

While exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as an appellate court to re-appreciate factual findings in the absence of manifest illegality or perversity; the petitioner failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or patent illegality warranting interference by this Court.ratio¶¶23
This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders; the writ petition is devoid of merit.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Kirti Singh, J., oral) dismisses in limine a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution challenging orders dated 06.05.2024 (Controlling Authority, Annexure P-2) and 20.03.2026 (Appellate Authority, Annexure P-3) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, U.T. Chandigarh, rejecting the petitioner's claim for balance gratuity (Rs.65,769/- sought with interest). The petitioner served from 17.07.1999 to 16.06.2010; after transfer from Chandigarh to Ladowal, Ludhiana and reduction of salary from Rs.9,500/- to Rs.5,000/-, he resigned on 16.06.2010 and received Rs.37,972/- as full and final settlement computed on the reduced salary. The Appellate Authority found he produced no cogent documentary evidence and had voluntarily accepted the settlement, including gratuity, without objection. This Court held the impugned order suffers no perversity and that under Articles 226/227 it does not re-appreciate factual findings absent manifest illegality or perversity; no jurisdictional error, natural justice violation or patent illegality was shown. Pending civil miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

¶1

CWP-18892-2026 - 1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

108 CWP-18892-2026 DATE OF DECISION: 10.07.2026

¶4

SALVINDER SINGH CHAHAL … Petitioner (s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT ADSJ AND OTHERS

¶7

... Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

¶9

Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶11

The challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the impugned orders dated 06.05.2024 (Annexure P-2) and 20.03.2026 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Controlling Authority and the learned Appellate Authority respectively under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, U.T., Chandigarh, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of balance gratuity amount has been rejected.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner while narrating the brief factual background of the case, submits that the petitioner joined the respondentmanagement as a Field Officer on 17.07.1999 and worked continuously till 16.06.2010. During his service, his salary was increased from ₹5,000/- to ₹7,500/- and finally to ₹9,500/- per month. He also worked in different sister

¶13

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CWP-18892-2026 - 2-

¶15

concerns under the same management. In May 2010, the petitioner was transferred from Chandigarh to Ladowal, Ludhiana. At the time, the salary of the petitioner was reduced from ₹9,500/- to ₹5,000/- per month and his designation changed from Field Officer to Supervisor without any notice or justification. Subsequently, the petitioner resigned from service on 16.06.2010, which was accepted on 17.06.2010. Thereafter, the respondentmanagement paid only ₹37,972/- towards full and final settlement, by wrongly calculating gratuity on the reduced salary of ₹5,000/- instead of the petitioner's last drawn salary of ₹9,500/-. Despite repeated requests, the respondentmanagement did not pay the balance gratuity amount.

¶16

It is submitted that the petitioner filed a claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the Controlling Authority, U.T., Chandigarh seeking the balance gratuity amount of Rs.65,769/- along with interest. During the proceedings, the respondent-management admitted that the gratuity had been calculated on the basis of the reduced salary. However, the Controlling Authority dismissed the claim on 06.05.2024 holding that the petitioner had already received full and final settlement. The petitioner thereafter preferred a statutory appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 20.03.2026. Aggrieved by the orders passed by both the authorities, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

¶18

It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent-management on 17.07.1999 and remained in continuous service

¶19

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-18892-2026 - 3-

¶21

till 16.06.2010. It is equally undisputed that the petitioner tendered his resignation on 16.06.2010, which came to be accepted on 17.06.2010. Having rendered continuous service for more than ten years, the petitioner became entitled to gratuity in terms of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

¶22

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Authority reveals that a categorical finding has been recorded that the petitioner failed to produce any cogent documentary evidence to substantiate the averments made in his claim petition. It was further observed that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted a sum of Rs.37,972/- towards full and final settlement of his dues, which included the gratuity amount, and had executed the relevant settlement documents. Moreover, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner never raised any objection to the said full and final settlement, nor did he challenge the settlement. It was thereupon, after assessing the submissions made before it in light of the documentary evidence on record, the impugned order was passed by the learned Appellate Authority, which in the opinion of this Court does not suffer from any perversity.

¶23

Trite to say that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an appellate Court to re-appreciate factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or patent illegality, warranting any interference by this Court.

¶24

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the

¶25

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CWP-18892-2026 - 4-

¶27

present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed in limine .

¶28

Civil miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, are also

¶29

disposed of.

¶30

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE

¶31

July 10, 2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶32

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Salvinder Singh Chahal v. the Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act Adsj and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salvinder Singh Chahal v. the Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act Adsj and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court I and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Saini Vs P.O., Gurgaon & Anr.

Kuldip Singh Vs S.T.A.T Pb. and Ors.

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bablu Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, Punjab and Others

S N a S School Vs the Presiding Officer Cum Controlling Authority and Anr.