SMT. HIRABAI SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010418162026 2026:CGHC:46203
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7856 of 2026
1 - Smt. Hirabai Sahu W/o Late Shri Suresh Lal Sahu Aged About 65
Years R/o Village Limtara And Post Office Purgaon Distt- Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education
Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,
Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction (D.P.I.) School Education
Department Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt- Raipur
(C.G.)
3 - District Education Officer, Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara School
Education Department Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)
4 - Head Master, Vidhya Mandir, Rajadevri, Tehsil Kasdol, Distt-
Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)
5 - Colllector, Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocate
For Respondent : Shri Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

2
Order on Board
02.11.2026
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, vide
order dated 27.11.2025, the Controlling Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, directed the payment of gratuity
amounting to ₹12,65,544/- to the husband of the petitioner
petitioner, who had been serving as a teacher in a 100%
Government-aided school. It is further submitted that the said
order, annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P/1, has neither
been challenged nor assailed by the State authorities before
any higher forum. Despite the order having attained finality, the
respondents have failed to comply with the same. Learned
counsel further submits that the District Education Officer, vide
communication dated 11.12.2025, addressed through the
Director of Public Instruction Raipur (C.G.), requested the
release of the gratuity amount in terms of the order dated
27.11.2025 passed by the Controlling Authority. However,
despite the aforesaid proceedings and communications, the
petitioner has not received the amount of gratuity awarded in
his favour.
2. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions
advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that the
Controlling Authority lacked jurisdiction to pass the order dated
27.11.2025, as the institution in which the petitioner was
employed does not fall within the category of establishments

3
covered under Section 1(3)(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
4. Having considered the rival submissions and the material
placed on record, it is evident that the order dated 27.11.2025
passed by the Controlling Authority, which has been brought on
record as Annexure P/1, has not been challenged or assailed
by the respondents before any competent higher forum. It is
also pertinent to note that the District Education Officer, vide
communication dated 11.12.2025, has requested the release of
the amount in accordance with the aforesaid order.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the
benefit of the order passed in his favour by the Controlling
Authority merely on the ground of non-compliance by the
respondent authorities, particularly when the said order has
neither been assailed nor challenged in appropriate
proceedings.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
the respondents to comply with the order dated 27.11.2025
passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972, and ensure payment of the gratuity to the

4
petitioner, in terms of the said order, within a period of thirty
(30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
SD/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
JUDGE
Amardeep