D.R. Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1772 Chatt

                                              1


                                                                                  NAFR

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                    WPS No. 4239 of 2021
     D.R. Yadav S/o Late M.D. Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Near Sai
     Mangalam, Viduth Nagar, Plot No. 4, Durg, District -Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                                       ---- Petitioner
                                           Versus
     1.      State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Water
             Resource, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar ( New Raipur),
             District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
     2.      Superintendent Engineer, Department Of Water Resource, Shivnath
             Division, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
     3.      Executive Engineer, Department Of Water Resource Viduth/yantrik
             L.M. Nalkup And Gate Division, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate For State : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

13/08/2021

1. The claim of the petitioner is for grant of payment of gratuity by

counting the services rendered by the petitioner before being

regularized under the respondents for the purpose of quantifying the

payment of gratuity.

2. The claim of the petitioner seems to be on the basis of the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Netram Sahu Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh and another reported in (2018) 5 SCC 430. This Court

prima-facie is of the opinion that since the claim of the petitioner is in

accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the

petitioner therefore ought to have raised his grievance/claim before

the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. It is

necessary to point out at this juncture that even the judgment of

"Netram Sahu" (supra) referred to by the petitioner arose from an

order passed by the Controlling Authority.

3. Accordingly, reserving the rights of the petitioner to approach the

Controlling Authority for making appropriate claim in respect of the

payment of gratuity, the present writ petition in its present form as of

now stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved