Vinod Kumar Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

Heard.

The controlling authority passed an order on 26-4-2013 in favour of the petitioner granting gratuity which was set aside by the Labour Court on the

basis of decision rendered by this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh and another v. Netram Sahu and another {W.P. (L)No.178/2013},

decided on 16-12-2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of this Court in W.P.(L)No.178/2013 has been set aside by the Supreme Court in the

matter of Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and another AIR 2018 SC 1545.

Learned State counsel would oppose the writ petition.

The orders passed by this Court in W.P.(L)No.178/2013 and W.A. No.240/2014 (Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) have been set

aside by the Supreme Court in Netram Sahu (supra) by holding as under: -

It was indeed the State who took 22 years to regular- ize the service of the appellant and went on taking work from the appellant on payment of a

meager 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 regularized the services of the appellant, the State had no justifiable reason to deny the benefit of

gratuity to the ap- pellant which was his statutory right under the Act. It being a welfare legislation meant for the benefit of the employ- ees, who

serve their employer for a long time, it is the duty of the State to voluntarily pay the gratuity amount to the ap- pellant rather than to force the

employee to approach the Court to get his genuine claim.

In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the matter

afresh in the light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Netram Sahu (supra).

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to cost(s).