Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 1241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Dr.Radha Krishna Sarma Chitta - Appellant
Versus
Govt.of A.P. - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 25019 of 2011, 30226, 26330, 26346 of 2012, 4078 of 2013, 12576 of 2014, 28232 of 2017
Decided On : 13-10-2023
N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate, A.Veeraswamy, Advocate
The court affirmed that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to educational institutions and continuous service for gratuity includes periods before the Act's applicability date, emphasizing employers' duty to pay gratuity irrespective of application delays.
Headnote:(A) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Eligibility and applicability to educational institutions - Employees filed writ petitions for gratuity payment under Act 1972, claiming entitlement due to service duration before and after 19/4/1997 - Respondent institution refused payment citing non-application of the Act - Court held that continuous service includes prior service and institutions must comply with statutory obligations. (Paras 21, 24, 58)
(B) Gratuity claims - Submission and procedure - The Court highlighted that non-filing of application within a specific timeframe does not invalidate the claim for gratuity; the employer must proactively determine gratuity amounts payable. (Paras 48-52)
Facts of the case:
Employees of a college sought gratuity payment after retirement, having completed necessary continuous service; institution argued the Act did not apply retroactively before certain dates. (Paras 8-10)
Findings of Court:
Employees entitled to gratuity under Act 1972, service prior to institution’s notification date counted for gratuity calculation, and statutory interest awarded. (Paras 57-58)
Issues: Key legal queries included whether counting of continuous service started only post-application of the Act and if belated claims could be denied. (Paras 21-23)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that employee benefits under the Act must be interpreted liberally, counting entire service duration, and responsibilities outlined in the Act’s provisions must be adhered to by employers. (Paras 26-30)
Result: Writ petitions allowed; educational institution directed to pay gratuity with interest; claims from institution dismissed as lacking merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common issues concerning gratuity payments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of writ petitions filed for gratuity. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. petitioners argue entitlement under gratuity act. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. respondent's defense regarding applicability of gratuity act. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. the government's position on authority roles in gratuity payments. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. determination of eligibility and service requirements. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 7. gratuity entitlement based on continuous service. (Para 22 , 24) |
| 8. interpretation of welfare legislation principles. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. service prior to notification counts toward gratuity. (Para 32 , 33 , 44) |
| 10. court's directive on gratuity payment terms. (Para 56 , 58) |
JUDGMENT
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. - These writ petitions involve common question of law and pertain to the same Educational Institution namely D.M.S.S.V.H. College of Engineering, Machilipatnam, Krishna District (in short, the Educational Institution).
2. The petitioner(s) in W.P.Nos.25019 of 2011, 30226 of 2012, 4078 of 2013 and 12576 of 2014 are the Employees of the Educational Institution and have filed the writ petition for direction to make the payment of gratuity as admissible to them under provisions of the Payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short, the Act 1972).
3. The W.P.Nos.26346 of 2012, 26330 of 2012 and 28232 of 2017 are filed by the Educational Institution, challenging the order dtd. 13/5/2012, passed by the 2nd respondent in P.G.A. Case No. 4/2012; order dtd. 13/5/2012, passed by the 2nd respondent in P.G.A. Case No. 3/2012, and the order dtd. 29/7/2017, passed by the 2nd respondent in P.G.A. Case No.1/2013, respectively, by which the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, has allowed the claim for grant of Gratuity of the employees of the Educational Institution, as involved therein.
4. Heard Sri N. A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner/employees in W.P.Nos.25019 of 2011, 30226 of 2012, 4078 of 2013 and 12576 of 2014; learned Government Pleader for respondent - State authorities and Sri A. Veeraswamy, learned counsel for the Educational Institution for respondents in these writ petitions filed by the employees as also for the petitioners, in the W.P.Nos.26346 of 2012, 26330 of 2012 and 28232 of 2017 i.e. the Educational Institution. There is no representation for the employees respondents in the writ petitions filed by the Educational Institutions.
5. W.P.No.25019 of 2011 has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"Hence in the interests of the Justice it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction(s) particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the gratuity as per the provisions of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is illegal and arbitrary by holding that the rejection of claim of the Petitioners by the 3rd Respondent in Proceedings No. DMS SVHCE/Principal/01B/010, dtd.: 30/4/2011 is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act and consequently direct the Respondents herein to release the gratuity admissible to the Petitioners herein as per the provisions of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as amended by Act 47 of 2009 for the period of service rendered by them with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of retirement and to pay the same, and pass such other Order or Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case.?
6. Facts in brief and the prayer of the other writ petition(s) are as under:-
(i) W.P.No.30226 of 2012:-
Facts:-
The petitioner joined the respondent Educational
Institution on 24/6/1981 as a Junior Assistant and later promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2005. He retired on 31/3/2012 as Senior Assistant on attaining the age of superannuation. He submitted a letter dtd. 29/3/2012 for payment of gratuity, but the same was not paid.
Prayer:-
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Cou
