Smt. Pushpa Devi Sharma v. Bisahin Bai & Ors.

Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22/07/2026

The petitioner has filed the petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

10.2) That, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 22.11.2018 and order dated 25.11.2016 (Annexure P/4) be quashed by holding it to be illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in eyes of law.

10.3) It is prayed before the Hon'ble Court kindly be remand the matter before the Controlling Authority decide the case of petitioner in merit after considering the reply filed by the petitioner.

10.4) Any other relief or relief(S) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

The facts, in brief, are that late Khorbahra/respondent No.1 was an employee under the State Civil Supplies Corporation, District Kabirdham, where he worked under the contractor from 08.01.1993 till

2016. After attaining the age of superannuation, he approached the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (for short, the Act, 1972) claiming gratuity to the tune of ₹ 71,262. The Controlling Authority, vide order dated 25.11.2016, allowed the application moved by the respondent No.1 and directed payment of Rs.71,262/- within one month.

The petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of Section 7(7) of the Act, 1972 on

06.04.2017, but the same was dismissed on the ground of delay. The Authority recorded a finding that the appeal was preferred after the 3 expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, against which, the present writ petition has been preferred.

Mr. Udit Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the Authority passed the order on 25.11.2016, same was signed on 03.12.2016 and served upon the petitioner on

09.12.2016. He would contend that the petitioner preferred an appeal on 06.04.2017 and same was filed within the extended period of limitation. He would further submit that the Authority committed an error of law while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner; thus, he prays that this petition may be allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for legal heirs of respondent No.1 would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and as the order was passed by the Authority on

25.11.2016 and signed on 03.12.2016, the period of limitation commenced from the said date; thus, he would support the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

Mr. Gupta, learned State Counsel would endorse the submissions made by the counsel for legal heirs of respondent No. 1.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

In the present case, the order was passed by the Controlling Authority on 25.11.2016, signed on 03.12.2016, and served upon the petitioner on 09.12.2016. The appeal was preferred by the petitioner on

06.04.2017.

From the date of service of the order passed by the appellate Authority upon the petitioner and the period of limitation available for filing the appeal was 60 days, extendable by a further period of 60 days, i.e., total 120 days, appeal preferred by petitioner was within period of limitation. 4

The period of limitation prescribed for preferring an appeal is provided under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which reads as under: (7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf: Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days. Provided further that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under subsection (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount.]

Bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that the period of limitation will start from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed by the Controlling authority.

In the present case, copy of order was received by the petitioner on

09.12.2016 and appeal was preferred on 06.04.2017 before expiry of 120 days. The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the sole ground that it was preferred after expiry of 120 days. The finding recorded by the appellate authority appears to be erroneous and contrary to record.

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, order passed by the appellate authority dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set- 5 aside and matter is remitted back to the said authority to decide it afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.

The parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on

25.08.2026.