<Z,0 HI6H COURT_OF CHHATTCS6ARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (L) No. 1359 of 2008 Petitioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Thr-ough : Executive Engineer, Public Works DepartmenT, (Building & Roads), Division - Balod, District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) Smt. (Seerja Bai, W/o. Danuram Halva, Village & Post - Tari, Thana - Gurur, District-Durg (Chhattisgarh) The Appellate Authority cum Deputy Commissioner of Payment of (Sratuity Act, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Controlling Officer, Payment of (Sratuity Act, 1972, Durg, District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PFTITOIN 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 ORDER (Passed on this 25th day of April, 2008) 1. The petitioner/State of Chhattisgarh impugns the order dated 12.2.2007 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Controlling Authority, under the Payment of Sratuity Act, 1972 cum Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg in Case No. 130/P6A/2005, which was confirmed by the order dated 24.9.2007 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Sratuity Act, 1972 . .,.,,,i»a8-^^ 'A ..""••'I; 'i%.ptasS^, ^e^^':^-^ p'5"'"' ^ cum Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Case No. 146/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;- ^ WT " 4. 'jcd'icll^l q?t tTRTT SpftyTTaST ^fH i\ ^ 01.10.1964 ^T TT *l4'id ? ? 09.6.2005 ^pt ^cllF'l^ ^3TF t 'cT 'gWf?t 3Tf?ffl' 3n?fer '^FT 4862/- TrrRTcp ^cn sNSr 41 cr^ cf?r aft prsrr 'd4ic<iri 'yT^M ^ q?f IRtKT ^TT t 1 SpftrTTaiT ^ gTCT !TR:[t]' ^raTET TT ^TCl\;c||c?1 c|?r 01.10.1964 ^T 31.12.97 ^f! WTTf TpT TT 'ET 01.01.98 ^ 09.6.2005 ^fi ?CT4»TTfeT ^TPT^TT Tf ^Ppi 'cf^MT 'i<T|chl<i f^TT ^ atf^TiT 311gRd cT?FT 4862/- ^fcpK f^TT TraT, 'CR7g Spft^Taff cpT ?r? ^pSR t f^> 'dTCt<qi^1 ^ 41 cp^ cf^ ^c||ch|i?l ^ ^l' ST?TT-3T?FT TT^T IN cpKi f^qT R^PltTliti';"! f^-Tfcf; 01.01.98 'CRTTRT ^phTfer ^rPW c^ tK ^; '^7 09.6.2005 ^fi ^\ STErfgr ^ ^T 42936/- '5)^ 'EpT 'd4|c;l'1 MP<T ^f^ cfiT ^t ^TRf t | " The main argument of the petitioner/State is that the Courts beiow have not considered the fact that the mother of the Respondent No.l was working as permanent gang man w.e.f. 01.10.1964 to 31.1.1997 and gratuity of this period is payable by the office of the Executive Engineer, whereas, she has worked in contingency establishment (regular) w.e.f. 01.01.1998 to 08.06.2005, therefore, the gratuity of this period is payable by the office of Joint Director, 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 ter-ms and there is no illegality, ir-regularity or perversity in the orders passed by the Courts below. 5. It is well-nigh established that this Court in exercise of its super-visory 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 e-rror is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the pres^nt case. 6. In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, summarily. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge