Chhattisgarh High Court Employment and Labour Law Civil Procedure and Evidence

Chhattisgarh HC Gives Authorities 30 Days To Pay Teacher’s Widow ₹12.65 Lakh Under Unchallenged Gratuity Order

SMT. HIRABAI SAHUv.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided November 02, 2026Published 4 November 2026 at 12:45 pm IST1 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

Whether the respondents could withhold payment under the Controlling Authority’s order when they had not challenged it before a competent forum.

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondents to comply with the Controlling Authority’s order dated 27 November 2025 and pay the gratuity to the petitioner within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

01Facts

The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, ordered payment of ₹12,65,544 as gratuity to the petitioner’s late husband, a teacher at a 100% government-aided school.

¶ 1

The respondents had not challenged that order.

¶ 4

The District Education Officer had also requested release of the amount, but payment remained outstanding.

¶ 1, 4

The State opposed the petition, contending that the Controlling Authority lacked jurisdiction because the school was not covered by Section 1(3)(c) of the Act.

¶ 2

02Issues

i.Whether the respondents could withhold payment under the Controlling Authority’s order when they had not challenged it before a competent forum.

¶ 4–5

ii.Whether the State’s objection to the Controlling Authority’s jurisdiction entitled it to refuse compliance with that unchallenged order.

¶ 2, 5

03Law Applied

The Court applied the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, under which the Controlling Authority had made the gratuity award; the State specifically relied on Section 1(3)(c) to dispute the Authority’s jurisdiction.

¶ 1–2

The Court’s operative principle was that a party cannot deny the benefit of an order that remains unchallenged in appropriate proceedings merely by failing to comply with it.

¶ 5

The Court did not determine whether the school fell within Section 1(3)(c).

Provisions in the judgment · 1

PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 Section 1

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the Controlling Authority’s order had not been challenged before a competent higher forum and that the District Education Officer had sought release of the amount in accordance with it.

¶ 4

In those circumstances, the State’s jurisdictional objection did not justify withholding payment while the order remained unchallenged; the Court did not separately adjudicate the merits of that objection.

¶ 2, 5