IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
N. Selvaraj – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Rep.by The Secretary to Government (Art & Culture) Chief Secretariat, Puducherry & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10282 of 2020
Decided On : 27-07-2023
Gratuity - Payment of Gratuity - Section 4(1), Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 4(1) and Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court highlighted the entitlement of gratuity to an employee on retirement, the maximum payable amount, and the employer's obligation to pay gratuity within 30 days, failing which simple interest is applicable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired research fellow, sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to settle the gratuity payable to him in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The respondents admitted the petitioner's entitlement but cited financial constraints for non-payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents failed to settle the gratuity amount to the petitioner, despite his retirement, and multiple representations. The court held the inaction of the respondents as illegal and unjust, emphasizing the legitimate right of the employee to timely retirement benefits.
Issues: Non-settlement of gratuity amount to the petitioner after retirement, financial constraints cited by the respondents, and the applicability of Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the gratuity amount and declared the respondents' inaction as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court emphasized the obligation of the employer to settle retirement benefits without unreasonable delay.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to pay the gratuity amount to the petitioner along with applicable interest. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, were ordered to be closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle the Gratuity payable to the petitioner in accordance with the Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also to pay the interest in terms of Section 7 (3-A) of the Act to the amount of gratuity from the date of his superannuation till the actual date of payment and in accordance with the representation initially filed on 16.04.2018 and lastly filed on 13.07.2020 within the time limit.)
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to settle the Gratuity payable to the petitioner in accordance with the Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also to pay the interest in terms of Section 7 (3-A) of the Act to the amount of gratuity from the date of his superannuation till the actual date of payment and in accordance with the representation initially filed on 16.04.2018 and lastly filed on 13.07.2020 within the time limit or pass further orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.
2. On behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner filed his rejoinder.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner passed M.A.(Tamil), M.Phil and Ph.D. in Tamil. He entered into the service as “Research Fellow” in Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture, Puducherry on 24.07.1995 in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-75-2275-EB-75- 2500 plus D.A., HRA as admissible to the employees of Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture, Puducherry. The scale of pay was fixed by the Institute in accordance with the orders of the Government of Puducherry College. The petitioner retired on 28.02.2017, on attaining the age of superannuation, after rendering 22 years of unblemished service. The employer (i.e) the second respondent had not sanctioned payment of gratuity as per rules in force (i.e,) Clause (i) of the sub rule (1) of rule 8 of the payment of Gratuity (Central) rules, 1972.
4. The learned counsel submits that the gratuity is a type of retirement benefit and it will be made with the intent of monetarily helping the employee after his retirement. The general principle underlying a gratuity scheme is that by service over a long period, the employee is entitled to claim a certain amount as retirement benefit.
5. The learned counsel further submits that gratuity has to be paid to an employee for his meritorious and honest service rendered to the employer. The Gratuity is being paid at the rate of 15 days wages for every completed years of service or part thereof in excess of six months. The 15 days wages will be calculated by dividing the last drawn wages by 26 and multiplying the result with 15. Under Section 4(3) the maximum gratuity that is payable is fixed at Rs.20,00,000/- as per the Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2018.
6. The learned counsel would further submit that the Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture, Puducherry is one of the institute started long ago in the year 1986 by the Government of Puducherry, under the Societies Act. It is a non-profit making educational society financed wholly and substantially by the Government of Puducherry by way of Grant-in-Aid. The learned counsel contends that the academic and non-academic staff of the Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture have fulfilled the conditions required to qualify for pension, as such they are very much eligible to exercise the pension scheme as per rules in force.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the retirement benefits are not settled by the respondents to the petitioner which is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner have made representations to the Director, Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture, Puducherry on 16.04.2018, 23.07.2019, 29.05.2020 and 13.07.2020, there
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the employer to timely settle retirement benefits, including gratuity, as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the employer to settle retirement benefits, including gratuity, in a timely manner as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity ....
The right to receive pension and gratuity is recognized as a right in 'property' and cannot be taken away without the due process of law.
Point of Law : It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as "law" within the meaning of aforesaid Article 30....
Retired employees are entitled to gratuity and interest on delayed payments, with the court having no discretion to deny interest under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 must include entire continuous service, including stop-gap employment, unless exempted by the appropriate Government.
Interpreting Act unequivocally indicate that payment of gratuity would not depend upon employee filing an application before employer demanding gratuity but will have to be paid immediately on cessat....
The right to receive pension and gratuity is recognized as a property and cannot be deprived except by having recourse to law in view of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The power of the S....
Writ petition decision underscores that withholding terminal benefits violates statutory rights under labor law, mandating their release with interest.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.