Sukhram Vishwakarma vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Since common facts and issues are involved in the present batch of writ petitions, they are being heard and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents of WPS No. 6850 of 2026 are being referred.

By the present writ petitions, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents authorities to comply with the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, “the Act of 1972”) and to disburse the balance unpaid gratuity amount along with applicable statutory interest under Section 7(3)(A) of the Act of 1972.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners were initially appointed on their respective posts in the respondent department and rendered more than three decades of continuous service before retiring on attaining the age of superannuation. Upon retirement, the respondents paid part of the gratuity amount, leaving the balance amount unpaid. He submits that the petitioners, therefore, approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which directed the respondents to pay the balance gratuity amount within 30 days, along with statutory interest under Section 7(3)(A) of the Act in case of default. Despite the said orders and the petitioners’ subsequent representations and applications under Section 8 of the Act, the balance gratuity amount has not been paid. Hence, the present petitions have been filed seeking compliance with the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and payment of the balance gratuity amount along with applicable interest.

Per contra, learned State counsel, by referring to paragraph 6 of the reply, submits that in view of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972, the definition of “employee” excludes an employee of the Central Government or State Government. Since the petitioners are employees of the State Government, the Act of 1972 would not be applicable to them and, therefore, the orders passed by the Controlling Authority are without jurisdiction. Hence, the present writ petitions seeking execution/compliance of the said orders are not maintainable.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

From perusal of the reply filed by the State, it is evident that the provision contained in Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972, excludes an employee of the Central Government or State Government from the definition of “employee”. It is undisputed that the petitioners are employees of the State Government, hence the Controlling Authority has to consider the said issue involving jurisdiction under the Act of 1972 to entertain the claim of the petitioners who are the employees of the State Government.

In view of the above, learned State counsel is directed to apprise the concerned authority to consider the applicability of the Act of 1972 and the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority in respect of the claims of the petitioners, in the light of Section 2(e) of the Act. The Controlling Authority shall consider the submissions of the State as well as the petitioners, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.