Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ.
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Idukki Division – Appellant
Versus
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Controlling Authority – Respondent
W.A. Nos. 705, 912, 1065, 1549, 1688, 1848, 1849, 1850, 1854, 1925, 1926, 2389 of 2017, W.P. (C) Nos. 20693, 20865, 21054, 21161, 21667, 21816, 21971, 22337, 22734, 22970, 23121, 23821, 24084, 25227, 25880, 26342, 31155, 31522 of 2017
Decided On : 01-12-2022
Indian Post Office Act, 1898 - Section 1(3)(b) - Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 2(k)- Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 - Whether Postal Department is an establishment - Held, Conclusion of single Judge that Act applies has to be upheld going by parity of reasoning in decision in and others - Court vacate finding of single Judge that employees had two options even if the 2011 Rules apply in view of Section 4(5) of Act - This finding is wrong for two reasons as 2011 Rules would not apply to those who retired prior to Rules that did apply did not provide for payment of gratuity - Court say this because although there were office memorandums issued to enable payment of gratuity to employees payment of gratuity was in nature of an ex-gratia payment at discretion of employer - It was only in 2011 Rules that payment of ex-gratia gratuity attained nature of right of retiring employee that he could claim from employer - Writ Petitions Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. All the above cases relate to the applicability and entitlement of the Gramin Dak Sewaks i.e. Extra Departmental Agents to receive gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') or whether they are governed by the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, which came into force on 18.4.2011 in supercession of the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001. For convenience, the above cases are divided into two categories. The first batch of cases are of the Gramin Dak Sewaks who retired after 18.4.2011 and the second batch of employees who retired prior to 18.4.2011 when the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001 was in force. By the orders impugned in these cases, the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, found that all the employees are entitled to gratuity as they are covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and had allowed their claims as prayed for.
2. The first batch deals with cases covered by Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 and comprise of the following cases.
3. The issues involved in these cases are whether the Postal Department is an establishment under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also whether a Gramin Dak Sewak is an “employee” as per Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 Act, and is entitled to payment of gratuity under the said Act? The questions are no loner res integra as the issue raised in the above cases is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices vs. Gurusewak Singh and Others, 2019 KHC 6339.
| S. No. | Case No. | Name of the employee | Date of engagement | Date of disengagement |
| 1 | WP (C) 21971/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam | P Ananthakrishna Pillai | 22.6.1983 | 25.10.2013 |
| 2 | WP (C) 22734/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam | S. Sivankutty | 31.12.1969 | 04.05.2016 |
| 3 | WP (C) 21054/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam | B. Shankari Amma | 03.04.1974 | 19.2.2015 |
| 4 | WP (C) 21667/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam | D. Babu | 31.1.1995 | 19.9.2016 |
| 5 | WP (C) 20693/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam | D. Sushamadevi | 28.1.2016 | 10.07.1979 |
| 6 | WP (C) 24084/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam | L. Rohinikutty | 25.7.1995 | 14.1.2014 |
| 7 | WP (C) 25880/2017 Filed by Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanmathitta Division, Pathanamthitta | Elizabeth David | 07.05.1979 | 30.11.2014 |
| 8 | WP (C) 26342/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam | K. Kumari | 06.02.1981 | 07.01.2016 |
| 9 | WP (C) 20865/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam | K. Amminikutty | 22.7.1983 | 09.06.2015 |
| 10 | WP (C) 21161/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam | R. Aravindakshan Pillai | 09.10.1985 | 13.04.2016 |
| 11 | WP (C) 22970/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam | N. Sivadasan | 08.08.1985 | 22.4.2016 |
| 12 | WP (C) 22337/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam | Indirabai Amma | 02.08.1993 | 19.01.2016 |
| 13 | WP (C) 23121/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam | K. Sundaresan Assari | 27.6.1996 | 18.5.2013 |
| 14 | WP (C) 23821/2017 Filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam | Safia Beevi | 07.03.1987 | 19.3.2015 |
| 15 | WP (C) 25227/2017 Filed by Superintendent of Post Offices, Path | |||
Gramin Dak Sevaks are not considered employees under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and must seek gratuity under the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011.
Gramin Dak Sevak is not classified as an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act, thus not entitled to gratuity from the postal department.
The Gratuity Act provides overriding rights for gratuity claims that cannot be denied unless specifically exempted by law, even when alternative welfare benefits exist.
Gramin Dak Sevaks' service cannot be counted for pension eligibility under existing rules and prior judgments affirm this.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to gratuity under a specific regulation and a general act was determined based on the fulfillment of conditions of eligibility....
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is a beneficial welfare legislation that overrides internal service regulations. Forfeiture of gratuity is strictly limited to the specific conditions prescribed un....
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
