Back
Karnataka High Court
U.RATNAKAR RAO - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 11-12-02
W.P. : 42553 of 2001
NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST (ADAPTATION OF RULES) REGULATIONS, 1980 - Regulation 4 - Petitioner retired employee of New Mangalore Port Trust -Unhappy with the pension benefits given and preferring the writ -Respondents relying upon their regulations relating to retired benefits in calculating pension amount -Petitioner claiming that pension to be calculated as laid down by Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and not under Gratuity Act as done by the respon dent -held, pension is to be calculated as laid down by Civil Services Rules -thus, pension amount enhanced.
[P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.] -If the petitioner is held to be entitled for the benefit of payment of gratuity in terms of Pension, Rules, the said benefit cannot be denied to him only on the ground that the petitioner has not approached the Court immediately after his retirement. It is necessary to point out that the retirement benefits including the gratuity are earned by an employee. It is the duty of the employer to settle the retirement benefit of an employee in accordance with the service conditions by which an employee is governed. It is not reasonable and fair to expect every retired employee to rush to the Court immediately after his retirement seeking settlement of retirement benefit. It is but natural for a retired employee to persuade his employer to settle his retirement benefit in accordance with the Rules and approaching the Court would be last option for a retired employee. Under these circumstances, if the petitioner had given representations and his claim came to be rejected by means of Annexure. R5 dated 9th August 2001, it would be unjust to deny the relief to the petitioner only on the ground that there is delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court and as such the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him for any relief by the Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court is satisfied with explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay in approaching the Court and therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of settlement of his gratuity under the Rules.
Case Referred: 1994(6) SCC 589.
Payment of gratuity to the employees covered by the New Mangalore Port Trust (Adaptation of Rules) Regulation 1980
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 - Section 2 - Petitioner retired employee of New Mangalore Port Trust -unhappy with the pension benefits given and preferring the writ - Respondents relying upon their regulations relating to retirement benefits in calculating pension amount - Petitioner claiming that pension to be calculated as laid down by Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and not under Gratuity Act as done by the respondent - held, pension is to be calculated as laid down by Civil Services Rules -thus, pension amount be enhanced.
[P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.] - From the reading of the said provision, it is clear that the provisions of the PG Act is not made applicable to a person who is governed by any Act or Rule providing for payment of Gratuity. Section 28(b) of the Act confers power on the Board to frame Regulations for several matters set out therein including for payment of gratuity. In the instant case, Regulation 4 of the Regulations framed by the 2nd respondent-Port Trust specifically provides that the existing Rules are applicable to the employees of the 2nd respondent-Port Trust until they are altered. Till now new Regulations have not been framed as provided under the said Regulations. Therefore, in view of Regulation 4 of the Regulations which makes the Pension Rules applicable, the gratuity payable to the petitioner is required to be settled in terms of Pension Rules.
Case Referred: 1994(6) SCC 589.
( 1 ) IN this petition the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to calculate the amount of gratuity admissible under the Pension rules in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Pension Rules'), by taking into consideration that the maximum amount admissible under the Pension Rules would be Rs. 2,50,000/- and sanction him the gratuity amount of Rs. 2,14,731/- with interest, after giving deductions to the payment already made, along with interest at 18% per annum from 1st july, 1997 till the date of payment.
( 2 ) FEW facts, which are not in serious dispute and are relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be stated as hereunder. The petitioner had retired as Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) in the services of the 2nd respondent-New Mangalore Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Port Trust') on 30th June, 1997. The 2nd respondent-Port Trust settled his retirement benefits including the gratuity immediately after his retirement on the basis he was entitled to receive the payment in terms of the provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gratuity Act' ). The petitioner not being satisfied with the settlement of the gratuity in terms of the provisions of the Gratuity Act, gave representations to the respondents to settle the gratuity payable to him in terms of the provisions contained under the Pension Rules. However, the claim made by the petitioner was negatived by means of communication dated 9th August, 2001, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-R5 along with the statement of objections. Challenging the action of the respondents refusing to settle the gratuity payable to him in accordance with the provisions contained in the Pension Rules, the petitioner has filed this petition.
( 3 ) SRI C. Dinakar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Pension rules, the gratuity payable to the petitioner is required to be settled in terms of the said rules and not in accordance with the provisions contained in the Gratuity Act. In support of his contention that the pension Rules applies, he drew my attention to Regulation 4 of the New mangalore Port Trust (Adaptation of Rules) Regulation, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the regulations' ). According to the learned Counsel, regulation 4 of the Regulations makes it clear that till new regulations are framed with previous sanction of the Central Government, the Pension rules would be applicable to all the employees of the 2nd respondent-Port Trust; and till now since the new regulations have not yet been framed, the petitioner is entitled for settlement of his pension in terms of the Pension Rules.
( 4 ) HOWEVER, Sri Ashok Harnahalli, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 strongly repelling the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of the Pension rules have no application to the case of the petitioner and his service conditions, so far as payment of gratuity is concerned, were governed on the date of his retirement by the provisions of the Gratuity Act. In support of his submission, he relied upon Section 2 (e) of the Gratuity act. He further submitted that this petition is also liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court.
( 5 ) IN the light of the rival contentions advanced by learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the two questions that would emerge for consideration in this petition are. 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for payment of gratuity in terms of the provisions contained in the Pension Rules or in terms of the provisions contained in the Gratuity Act?2. Whether the petition is liable to be rejected solely on the ground of delay and laches on the part of petitioner in approaching thi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
