SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J.
Usha J, W/o. D Sudheeraj – Appellant 
Versus 
Government Of Kerala – Respondent 
WP(C) No. 256 of 2024
Decided on : 11-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : ADV SHRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK
For the Respondent: SRI P.M. SAMEER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.ATHUL SHAJI, SHRI.GAUTHAM H., SMT.ANJALY T.A

Retirement gratuity is a statutory right under the Payment of Gratuity Act, and exemptions from the Act cannot apply retrospectively to negatively impact employees' entitlements.

Headnote:(A) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - The petitioners sought to quash orders denying gratuity rights and requested the release of arrears due as per the 7th Central Pay Revision. The court affirmed that the exemption notification does not apply retrospectively to the petitioners who retired before it took effect. (Paras 1, 7, 9, 11, 12)

(B) Gratuity Rights - The court reinforced that gratuity is a right under the provisions of the 1972 Act, not a discretionary payment from the employer. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners retired between 2016 and 2020, having qualifying service for full pension, but faced denial of gratuity under the 1972 Act, restricted benefits under newer orders. (Paras 1, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioners are entitled to gratuity under the 1972 Act, and orders denying them this right were quashed, mandating payment of dues with interest. (Paras 9, 13)

Issues: The primary issues included the applicability of the 1972 Act to the petitioners and the justification for denying them full gratuity and arrears of salary. (Paras 7, 9)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the exemption notification issued cannot prejudice the rights of employees and supported the petitioners' claims for payments under the 1972 Act and 7th Pay Revision. (Paras 9, 12)

Result: The writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to release the due amounts and quash the orders denying gratuity rights.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek payment and gratuity as per law. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. responses from the respondents outline their stance on gratuity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court examines applicability of the 1972 act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. previous rulings bolster petitioners' claims. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. court orders payment of dues to petitioners. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT :

T.R.RAVI, J.

The writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondents to release the arrears of Pay and Leave Surrender salary due to the petitioners as per the 7th Central Pay Revision Scales for the period from 01.01.2016, and to quash Exts.P9 and Ext.P10 to the extent they deny the right of the petitioners for retirement gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1972 Act'), and to disburse the amounts with interest and costs.

2. The petitioners retired on superannuation from the service of the 2nd respondent (hereinafter referred to as RCC) after 01.01.2016, and between 2018 and 2020. Petitioners have the qualifying service required for full pension. Exts.P4 to P8 give the service details of the petitioners, including their entry into service and length of service. Ext.P12 Government Order dated 6.2.1987 relates to the bifurcation of the staff and segregation of funds of the 2nd respondent. It says that terminal benefits applicable to the State Government employees who retire from service on superannuation, will be given to the employees of the Medical Education Department working in the RCC who opt for absorption, that conditional option will be treated as not opting for absorption in RCC and that on becoming regular employees of the RCC, they will be governed by the service rules of the RCC. By Ext.P1 Government Order dated 26.2.2021, revision of pay as per the 7th Central Pay Revision was sanctioned to the employees of RCC. Petitioners fall within the Non- Academic staff category and come under Sl.Nos.14,15, and 39 in Ext.P1. Paragraph II (b) of Ext.P1 says that the multiplication factor applicable on the existing basic pay (pay in the band + GP) as on 31.12.2015, is 2.57. Paragraph 5 of Ext.P1 shows that the date of effect of pay revision will be 1.1.2016, and allowances shall be prospective from 1.1.2021, and that arrears will be settled later.

3. Ext.P3 is the order issued on a request made by the 3rd petitioner, pursuant to directions issued by this Court. It is stated therein that the request for benefits of the 7th pay revision will be considered along with the case of all employees who retired from 1.1.2016 to 31.5.2021 on receiving clarification from the Government. Regarding gratuity, it is stated that the employees of RCC are governed by Rule 44(a) of the RCC Service Rules, and not by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 . It is stated that RCC has been exempted from the provisions of the 1972 Act as per a statutory notification issued by the Government of Kerala. The petitioners submit that the Government has neither issued any clarification nor any statutory notification, exempting the RCC from the provisions of the 1972 Act. Regarding the pension, it is stated in Ext.P3 that it will be paid as 40% of Basic Pay + DA till modified orders are issued by the Government. By Ext.P9 order, the 1st respondent granted sanction for payment of an enhanced rate of DCRG of ₹17,00,000/- to the employees of the 2nd respondent. The amount payable under the 1972 Act was ₹20,00,000/-. However, the same was restricted to ₹17,00,000/- and that too on a prospective basis, subject to the condition that the additional financial commitment will be met from the own funds of the 2nd respondent. Ext.P9 is dated 21.11.2022. It can be seen from Ext.P10 order relating to the 3rd petitioner that the amount of gratuity was restricted to ₹10,00,000, even though the admissible retirement gratuity was ₹11,12,426/-.

4. Heard Sri S. Abdul Razzak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.M.Sameer, Government Pleader, for the 1st res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top