HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (L) No. 1363 of 2008 Petitioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, (Building <& Roads), Division - Balod, District - Durg (Chhottisgarh) Smt. Mayadevi Sonwani, Widow of Late Shri Bhupat Lal, C/o. Om P.C.O., Kachhari Chowk, Balod, District-Durg (Chhattisgarh) The Appellate Authority cum Deputy Commissioner of Payment of Sratuity Act, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Controlling Officer, Payment of (Sr-atuity Act, 1972, Durg, Distr-ict - Durg (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITOIN UN&ER ARTICE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Alok Bakshi, 6ovt. Advocate for the petitioner/State. ORAL OR&ER :th (Passed on this 25Tn day of April, 2008) 1. The petitioner/State of Chhattisgarh impugns the order dated 14.2.2007 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Controlling Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 cum Assistant Labour eommissioner, Durg in Case No. 147/PGA/2005, which was confirmed by the order dated 27.9.2007 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Sratuity Act, 1972 IIBI i.^'' cum Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Case No. 148/P.6.A./2007. The Appellant Authority, after having considered the contentions of the petitioner, who was appellant before it, came to the conclusion as under:- " 4. 'dTCl<;c|l<?l cpT ^Tf?r arttersff ^RSTR ^r •Eri-^o.oi.1988 "?)' ei^R'k; ^ ^T ^ it>l4>;cl ? ? 18.4.2000 ?Pt t^ (Tcf; cbl<}<!d '?gT l ? d'Hct^ sff^riT 'cttR 3946/- llRlch ^E[T 3ra1ST 12 crf ^t sft (TSIT ^TRFT ^ldl'1 ^[ SIT^T 'V^ IR^cT f^qr f 1 SP'TtclTaff c^ gra- TRgrT •urqTST Tt '.jal'iqiifl cft ftq^T 20.01.1988 ^ 31.12.93 tlcp ril^lR'tri ? 01.01.94 ^ 18.4.2000 rlcd <H*1'l|41<'l ^srnRT ^ '^1 ^ 'cfjri cp^'TT '^'t'i'; f^rT TCT sff^rT ^T 3949/- ^ftcpR f^qT TraT, W-^ 3ITIit?ITsff cpT ?rg q5SR t fe rf^f'ic||([l ^ wyf 12 'EI^ ^ <i|c||cb|cH TT ^t STcFT-SfcTn" 1TCT 1T; cprf f^qr t l ^•yRiy Pi^f?itT|ch<i"i R-iicb 01.01.94 4^'clld <H*1'y41cf ^ TR ^R ^cIT R'li* 18.4.2000 tR; c|?)- STcrfSr ^ ^r 119537- ^ril ^T gra- -cf^f ~sfi\ -gf -v^ f I" The main argument of the petitioner/State is that the Courts below have not considered the fact that the husband of the Respondent No.l was working as Typist w.e.f. 1987 to 18.04.2000 and gratuity of this period is payable by the office of the Executive Engineer, whereas, he worked in contingency establishment (regular) and the gratuity of this period is payable by the office of Joint birector, Treasury, Accounts and Pension. On perusal of the impugned orders passed by the authorities below, it is evident that the grounds raised herein have been considered in terms and there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the orders passed by the Courts below. '.•.;?%SEI "s-s* Thakur 5. It is well-nigh established that this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the faceof the record, which is not in the prssent case. 6. In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, summarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge