<^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT B3LASPUR W-P^(L) No^l358 of 2008 Petitioner Versus Re^ondents 1. 2. 3. State of Oihntt-isyirh, TTirough : E3<ecutive Engineer, Public Works Depurtment, (Buil<lin9 & Roads), Esiyiaion - Balod. District - Clurg (Chhaftisgarh) Smt. Niro Bai. W/o. Shri Udantmm Y®iav, Vilie^e & Post - Loharo, District - burg (Chhnrtisgarh) The Appellnte Au-thority cum D^airty Commissioner of PaymenT of Gra+uity Act, faiipur (Chhattis9<irh) The Controlling Officer, Payment of ©ro-ruityAct, 1972, Ourg. District - E>ur9 (Chhutti^arh) WRTT PETITOINUN&ER ARTECE 226 OT THE CONSTITUTION Sjngle Bwch : Hon'bie M.r. Satish K. Agrrihotrj. J. -9iri Alok Bakshi, 6ovt. Adyocate for the petitioner'/Stn'tB. ORAL ORDER 0>assed on -this 23"' day of April, 200S) 1. Wi'rti the consent of leomed counsel appenring for the petitioner, •the matter is taken up for final heoring. 2. The petitioner/State of Chhfrttiqarh impugns •the order dated 12.2.2007 (Annexure P/2) possed by the Controllmg Authority, undei- the Paymeait of Sratui'ty Act. 1972 cum Assis-tant Lobour Commisaioner'. Eiurg in Cose No. 06/P6A/2005, tuhich uns uinfirmed by the arde.r dated 24.9.2007 (Annexure P/4) passed by •the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Srotuity Act. 1972 ^ cum Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, teiipur in Case, No. 144/P.6.A./20)7. 3. The Appellont Auihoriiy, after having considered the cwitentions of the petitioner, uiho uns oj^elkmt before it, came to the conciuSion ns under:- c/ •' 4. ti(Ti<''ii<ft 3PftefPff W 1K <T irf 1965 ^ Wif^? ^ ^W 4 WPhcf ^tR 31.12.04 ^T -tliilRijcri g3ff t ? ^Hia^ 3tf?W 3fRf^f ^R 449S/- W^'h '&iIT 3R& 40 >rf <]?F ?ft tCT rf4i<{M yRiH ^ 3lrtcpT •T3 IRgrT f^w t i witeplf * &RT ff?g(T "iiTO ^ dnf'<ijl41 ^ Ptgf^T 1965 ^ 31.12.97 ?W ^nf ^T <F ? 01.01.98 ^ 31.123004 cp? *!4'*1lRd ^WHr 4 ipfff w-v -sftgiR ftsff w 3Tf?PT 311(;R(f ^FT 449S/- ^t'CT? fiiW WIT, w^ 3pft?n»ffwr ?i? gs-FT t fti tinl-iijltft ^ W^4 40 >rf * ^WBRf 4 ?F arcra-Wem ffi?f w? iBrf ^f'fff t ! ^fff^ff p);jffi<ftcb'<"! fiHiip 01.01.98 WeiKf *!^'*flRd OPtip ^ q? T? ^<}T I^I^Rff ft^!f> 31.122004 rTBp i^ Wjffiy ^g ^cT 23488/—^fqA iBT ij>j!riiTf gp<f 'a^S Tfif ^t ITR ^ i" 4. The main argument of -rtie petitioner/Stnrte is that the Cmirts below hnve not cona'dered the fact -that the fteqiondent No.l was working os permanent gang mon w.e.f. 1965 to 31-1.1997 and gmtuity of +his period is payobte by -the office of •the Executive Eryineer, whereas, she had worked in cpntingency establiriiment (regular) w.e-f. 01.01.1998 to 31.12.2004 and *e gm-hiity of -this period is poyable by the office of Joint tljrector. Treosury, Accounts <md Pena'on. 5. On perusol of -the impugned orders passed by -the aj-ttiorities below, it is evident that the grounds raised herem have been considered in terms and there ss na itlegali+y, irreguhrfty or perversity in •rtie orders passed by the Courts below. k • tdi"'®?8 ^^"v% H vt SVi ,' •->. -5-,. ^o 6. It is uieli-nioh established •that •this Court in exercise of its suj»rvisoryjurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself frorp interfering with the order passed by -rtie Court below, excq?t in such cases uihere perversity, illegoli+y. irregulflrity or jurisdicfrional errorjs writ large on the face of the record, which is not in •the present case. 7. Tn view of the foregoing, there is no merit in •this petition and the saine is dismissesd, summnriiy. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge