JUDGMENT :

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1. A judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated January 14, 2025, in WPA No. 26418 of 2017 is under challenge in this appeal, and the subject matter of the lis is whether after the death of the erstwhile and retired employee of the respondent company, who happens to be the husband of the appellant, the respondent has acted lawfully and justifiably in withholding his gratuity, considering that the present appellant has not yet delivered the vacant possession of the government accommodation occupied by her, allegedly unauthorisedly.

2. The husband of the appellant retired on 31.12.2014. During the course of his employment, he was allotted premises No. 6, Sarat Chandra Avenue, Durgapur Steel Township for his residential purpose, which the employee was required to vacate within two months of his date of retirement.

3. After retirement, the said employee did not vacate the government quarter which he occupied during service. He has claimed gratuity before the Controlling Authority in March 2015. The Controlling Authority in the month of January 2017 has directed for the payment of gratuity to the said employee/his legal heir [present appellant], amounting to Rs.14,85,448/-.

4. The writ petition No. WPA 26418 of 2017 has been filed by the present respondent company challenging the order of payment of gratuity to the said employee/his legal heir on the grounds, inter alia, that the order of the competent Authority suffers from non-consideration of the specific provision of SAIL Gratuity Rules, which squarely apply in the case of the said employee, since retired; that the direction of the Authority was without jurisdiction as the same is not empowered to adjudicate with reference to the company’s own Rules, that is, the SAIL Gratuity Rules; that according to the said Rules as applicable to the concerned employee, the company is duly empowered and competent to withhold the gratuity payable to the said employee, which the statutory Authority has failed to consider.

5. The said writ petition has been disposed of by the Hon’ble Single Judge vide the impugned judgment as mentioned above, in which the court has recorded that the impugned order in the writ petition was unsustainable and the same was set aside by the court. All consequential steps taken pursuant to the order impugned in the writ petition were also set aside by the court. The court has further directed that the Controlling Authority should reconsider the matter afresh after giving a right of hearing to both the company and the employee and pass a reasoned order within a stipulated period of time. Hence, being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

6. Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, learned advocate for the appellant has founded his argument on a well-settled legal principle that gratuity is being paid to an employee in recognition of meritorious conduct during the tenure of his service and as such no development of events, subsequent to cessation of employer-employee relationship by way of supervision or retirement or resignation should be considered as relevant for having any negative bearing upon the admissibility of gratuity. He submits that as per provision under section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, forfeiture of gratuity amount is only permitted in case of termination of the concerned employee from service for his unacceptable conduct in the course of his employment. He has further submitted that in case the SAIL Gratuity Rules contain anything inconsistent with the same as above, in terms of section 14 of the said Act of 1972, the provision of the statute overrides the same. Mr. Chattopadhyay has further submitted that the provision heavily relied upon by the respondent company in the SAIL Gratuity Rules, claiming to be an enabling provision, allowing the company to withhold the gratuity in case of extended occupation of the company premises by the employee beyond the stipulated period of time, has ultimately been omi