Chattisgarh High Court
Manthir vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 July, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
2025:CGHC:34513-DB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.07.22
18:37:28
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 378 of 2016
1 - Manthir S/o Late Chandulal Joshi, Aged About 66 Years R/o Post
Anda, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2 - Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, Division Durg, District
Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Appellate Authority, Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, Office Of
Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
2
WA No. 394 of 2016
1 – Thakur Ram S/o Shri Jhhumuk Sahu, Aged About 37 Years R/o
Village Kharra, Post Teligundara, Tahsil Patan, District Durg,
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
— Appellant
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2 – Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, Division Durg, District
Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
3 – The Appellate Authority, Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, Office Of
Labour Commissioner Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
WA No. 393 of 2016
1 – Harishchandra S/o Late Marar, Aged About 64 Years R/o Village And
Post Jaamgaon, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
— Appellant
Versus
3
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2 – Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Bh/ Sa, Durg
Division, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
WA No. 390 of 2016
1 – Smt. Tijiya Bai D/o Palturam, Aged About 66 Years R/o Village
Banjaripara Utai, Post Utai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh,
Chhattisgarh
— Appellant
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2 – Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bh/ Sa, Durg
Division, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
4
WA No. 379 of 2016
1 – Smt. Sawana Bai D/o Paras Ram, Aged About 66 Years R/o Village
Felari, Post Selud, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh,
Chhattisgarh
— Appellant
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2 – Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Bh/ Sa, Durg
Division, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
WA No. 380 of 2016
1 – Hemin Bai D/o Kaliram, Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Indira
Nagar, Patan, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
— Appellant
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Thorugh The Secretary, Public Works
Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh,
Chhattisgarh
5
2 – Executive Engineer, Public Work Department Bh/sa Durg Division,
Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
3 – The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, Office Of
Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
WA No. 384 of 2016
1 – Smt. Sato Bai D/o Sonam Gond, Aged About 67 Years R/o Village
Selud, Post Selud, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh,
Chhattisgarh
— Appellant
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2 – Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, Division Durg, District
Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
3 – The Appellate Authority, Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, Office Of
Labour Commissioner Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6
— Respondent(s)
WA No. 392 of 2016
1 – Bhikham S/o Shri Budhram, Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Akalai,
Post Surpa, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
— Appellant
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh,
Chhattisgarh
2 – Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, Division Durg, District
Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
3 – The Appellate Authority, Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, Office Of
Labour Commissioner Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Appellants :Shri Rajkumar Pali, Advocate
For Respondents/State:Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional
Advocate General
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
7
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
21.07.2025
1. Heard Shri Rajkumar Pali, learned counsel for the appellants.
Also heard Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional
Advocate General for the State/Respondents.
2. By the present writ appeal, the appellant/writ petitioner seeks
setting aside the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the
learned Single Judge in WPL No. 06/2016 and confirmed the
order dated 30.04.2014 passed by the Controlling Authority.
3. The case of the writ petitioner was that he was engaged as
daily wager in the work charged establishment and as such he
his governed by different set of rules. According to the writ
petitioner he acquired the status of a temporary employee
after five years of service and as such he is entitled for the
calculation of his entire service period including the period
spent on daily wages for calculation of the amount of gratuity
under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.
4. The said writ petition along with other connected matter
considered by the learned Single Judge and by common order
8
dated 22.02.2016 dismissed the same holding that in view of
the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in W.A. No.
240/2014 (Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others)
the period spent on daily wages cannot be counted for
payment of gratuity. The learned Single Judge dismissed the
writ petition observing as under:-
“5. In view of the above, the plea regarding attainment of
status of temporary employee would hardly have any
effect on the decision making because when the initial
appointment itself was dehors the constitutional scheme
of appointment, the period spent on daily wages
pursuant to the said illegal appointment would not be
available for calculation for the purpose of Section 4 of
the Act, 1972. Subsequent regularization would only
make the person entitled for retiral benefits in terms of
the Rules but a daily wager would not be entitled for
calculation of the period spent on daily wage for the
purpose of payment of gratuity.
6. In all the cases, the State Government has paid the
amount of gratuity in terms of entitlement of each of the
petitioners by calculating the period of service after
regularization and the Controlling Authority has directed
for payment of balance amount by taking into
consideration the period spent on daily wages. The
Appellate Authority has set aside the said part of the
9
order where the balance amount has been directed to be
paid.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, in view of the
Division Bench judgment in the matter of Netram Sahu
(referred to above), period spent on daily wages cannot
be counted for payment of gratuity. Therefore, the
Appellate Authority under the Act, 1972 has not
committed any illegality by allowing the appeal preferred
by the respondents.
8. Insofar as incompetency of the appeal memo before
the Appellate Authority for the same being filed by a
different officer is concerned, all the appeal memos bear
signatures of the lawyer and the officer presenting the
same. There is no factual foundation averring that the
officer who has signed the memo of appeal was not
holding the office of Executive Engineer on a given date
or that while signing the appeal memo, the concerned
officer has no authority to put his signatures. It depends
on internal working of the department as to the manner
in which the appeal is to be preferred. When financial
stakes of the Government are involved, this Court would
be slow to consider and accept such technical pleas and
would prefer to deal the matter on merits.
9. For the foregoing, all the writ petitions being devoid of
any substance deserve to be and are hereby dismissed.
5. In fact, WPL No. 178/2013 (State of Chhattisgarh & Another Vs.
Netram Sahu & Another) was allowed by the writ Court by
10
order dated 16.12.2013. Against the said order Netram Sahu
approached the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.
240/2014, which was dismissed by order dated 01.08.2014
holding thus:
“8. The rights and status of a person appointed even on
daily wage contrary to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution was considered by a Constitution
Bench in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka
and others Versus Umadevi (3) and others). It was
observed :-
“2….But, a regular process of recruitment or
appointment has to be resorted to, when
regular vacancies in posts, at a particular
point of time, are to be filled up and the filling
up of those vacancies cannot be done in a
haphazard manner or based on patronage or
other considerations. Regular appointment
must be the rule.”
“43… Therefore, consistent with the scheme for
public employment, this Court while laying
down the law, has necessarily to hold that
unless the appointment is in terms of the
relevant rules and after a proper competition
among qualified persons, the same would not
confer any right on the appointee…….. The
11courts must be careful in ensuring that they
do not interfere unduly with the economic
arrangement of its affairs by the State or its
instrumentalities or lend themselves the
instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the
constitutional and statutory mandates.”
9. We are not oblivious of Section 4 of the Act. Eligibility
arises after completion of five years of continuous
service. We also cannot entirely disagree with Municipal
Council, Panna (supra) holding that Section 2(e) of the Act
will include daily wagers who have completed five years
of service even though it does not notice Section 4(2) First
Proviso providing for the method to calculate gratuity of
daily wagers. But will the Act cover an appointment made
contrary to the Constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution. Will the Act by virtue of Section 14
prevail over the Constitution. The answer has to be in the
negative. A harmonious construction shall be that the Act
will apply to daily wagers appointed in accordance with
the Constitutional mandate. The Learned Single Judge
had already adverted to this aspect. It is not the case of
the appellant that he was appointed on daily wage in
12
accordance with law. A reading of his order for
regularization evinces it to be contrary to the law laid down
in Umadevi (supra). But that is not an issue for our
consideration at present. If regularization was not
permissible in law, he cannot be held eligible for another
benefit on the same facts. In Teja Singh (supra) relied upon
by the respondents gratuity was denied on a claim based
on illegal appointment as daily wage.
10. The appellant is therefore not entitled to count his
period of service on daily wage under Section 4 of the Act to
claim entitlement for gratuity.
11. The appeal is dismissed.
6. On the basis of the decision rendered by the Division bench of
this Court in the matter of Netram Sahu, the learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant herein.
7. However, the matter travelled up to the Supreme Court in
Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another reported in
(2018) 5 SCC 430, (decided on 23.03.2018 in Civil Appeal No.
1254/2018), wherein the same was allowed observing thus:
“11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to
allow the appeal and while setting aside the orders of the
High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) restore the
13orders of the controlling authority and appellate
authority.
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 1-4-1986 to 30-7-2011 to the State. It is
also not in dispute that the appellant’s services were
regularised by the State by order dated 6-5-2008 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.
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
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.
14. We do not agree with this submission of the learned
counsel for the respondent State for more than one
reason:
14.1. First, the appellant has actually rendered the
service for a period of 25 years;
14.2. Second, the State actually regularised his
services by passing the order dated 6-5-2008;
1414.3. Third, having regularised the services, the
appellant became entitled to claim its benefit for
counting the period of 22 years regardless of the
post and the capacity on which he worked for 22
years;
14.4. Fourth, no provision under the Act was brought
to our notice which disentitled the appellant from
claiming the gratuity and nor any provision was
brought to our notice which prohibits the appellant
from taking benefit of his long and continuous
period of 22 years of service, which he rendered prior
to his regularisation for calculating his continuous
service of five years.
15. In our considered opinion, the High Court committed
an error in placing reliance on the decision of this Court
in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)3 to deny the relief of
grant of gratuity to the appellant. In the case at hand,
the High Court should have seen that the services of the
appellant was actually regularised by the State and,
therefore, the law laid down in Umadevi (3)3 could not be
relied on. Indeed, even the decision of Umadevi (3)³
makes a distinction in cases and where the services stand
regularised, the ratio of Umadevi (3)3 to deny the relief
would not apply.
16. In our considered opinion, once the State regularised
the services of the appellant while he was in State
services, the appellant became entitled to count his total
period of service for claiming the gratuity amount subject
15to his proving continuous service of 5 years as specified
under Section 2-A of the Act which, in this case, the
appellant has duly proved.
17. In the circumstances appearing in the case, it would
be the travesty of justice, if the appellant is denied his
legitimate claim of gratuity despite rendering
“continuous service” for a period of 25 years which even,
according to the State, were regularised. The question as
to from which date such services were regularised was of
no significance for calculating the total length of service
for claiming gratuity amount once the services were
regularised by the State.
18. It was indeed the State who took 22 years to
regularise the service of the appellant and went on
taking work from the appellant on payment of a meagre
salary of Rs 2776 per month for 22 long years
uninterruptedly and only in the last three years, the State
started paying a salary of Rs 11,107 per month to the
appellant. Having regularised the services of the
appellant, the State had no justifiable reason to deny the
benefit of gratuity to the appellant which was his
statutory right under the Act. It being a welfare
legislation meant for the benefit of the employees, who
serve their employer for a long time, it is the duty of the
State to voluntarily pay the gratuity amount to the
appellant rather than to force the employee to approach
the Court to get his genuine claim.
16
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.
20. Indeed, this reminds us of the apt observations made
by M.C. Chagla, C.J. (as he then was) in Firm Kaluram
Sitaram v. Union of India. 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: (SCC OnLine Bom para
19)
“19. 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.”
21. These observations apply in full force against the
State in this case because just case of the appellant was
being opposed by the State on technical grounds. As a
consequence, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court
(Single Judge and Division Bench) are set aside and the
orders of the controlling authority and appellate
17
authority are restored with costs of Rs 25,000 payable by
the State to the appellant. Costs to be paid by the State
along with the payment of gratuity amount.
22. The respondent State is directed to release/pay the
gratuity amount as determined by the controlling
authority within three months to the appellant.
8. Since the issue in question has already been settled by the
Supreme Court in Netram Sahu (supra), hence the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in WPL No. 06/2016 and
other connected matters dated 22.02.2016, is liable to be and
is hereby set-aside. The respondent State is directed to
release/pay the gratuity amount as determined by the
Controlling Authority within two months from today.
9. Accordingly, the present writ appeals are allowed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Amardeep/Shoaib