HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (L) No. 1366 of 2008 Petitioner State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, (Building <& Roads), bivision - Balod, District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. Shri Budhram, S/o. Shri Dhanram Qewangan, Village - Deori, Post - Khertha Bazar, Tahsil - Lohara, District-Durg (Chhattisgarh) The Appellate Authority cum Deputy Commissioner of Payment of Sratuity Act, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Controlling Officer, Payment of Sratuity Act, 1972, Ourg, District - burg (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITOIN UNDER AKTICE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Alok Bakshi, 6ovt. Advocate for the petitioner/State. ORAL 0_RDER :th (Passed on this 25T" 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 Commissioner, burg in Case No. 07/P6A/2005, which was confirmed by the order dated 24.9.2007 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Appellate Author-ity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 liSBIBBfi /'y '^^ ' cum Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Case No. 145/P.6.A./Z007. 2. The Appellant Authority, after having considered the contentions of the petitioner, who was appellant before it, came to the conclusion as under:- c^ ^q ir sss " 4. rfa1<ic||cfl 3pft?IT?ff ^RefR TT ^ 1958 ^^ ?to^ 30.11.2004 ^ !R?f 4t-1 c^ gTCT <L|C||R^TC| ^STT t | cT •iTac^r gff^ ^TR 4802/- tllRfcb ^cFT 3rafSr 46 ?^ cft aft ?I®IT'OTKPT ^ldl-l ^, STT^T VS Wf^f f^TT t | STiftprTaS c^ gTCT ff^T ufcITSr •?r -dTCl<ic||({1 ^ PiyRrl 1958 ^ 1995 tlcp •?sn^ Tf^ ^ cT 29.6.99 ^ 30.11.2004 'SV ^pphrf^T WTPT'TT ^ ^r4 ^T;IT '^lcpR f^qr 159 stf^rq' siigRd ^KR 4802/- '^lcfiR 1^IT 1TOT, TN^[ 3ITft?n'2ff cpT ?I? ^SR f ^ rftd'!c||^ ^ Wj4 46 c[^ -E^ -t)c||c)i|d ^ ^t- STSPT-STcPT 1tRT TN ^P? f^qT t | Pl'yf*1<flcb'<"l f^TW 29.6.99 ^R^ra' 'EW'PTTRtT VfiVS; -c^ TR- TR ^cTT 30.11.2004 nq? cf?r sra^r ^ ^pT 21145/—^IT^ cpT >d4|c;l'1 HTCr q^r ^p\ fr ^ra' t i" The main argument of the petitioner'/State is that the Courts below have not considered the fact that the Respondent No.l was working as permanent gang man w.e.f. 1958 to 1995 and gratuity of this period is payable by the office of the Executive Engineer, whereas, he had uvorked in contingency establishment (regular) w.e.f. 29.06.1999 to till the date of retirement, therefore, the gratuityof this period is payable by the office of Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension. Ofi 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. JL 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 whe.re perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the pre^ent case. 6. In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, summarily. SatishK.Agnihotri Judge