2024 Supreme(Ori) 56
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Sashikanta Mishra, J.
Smt. Kasturi Das - Appellant
Versus
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology & Ors. - Respondents
W.P (C) No. 16290 of 2012
Decided On : 09-05-2024
IMPORTANT POINT
Gratuity payments are a right of employees, and delays in payment due to administrative lapses result in the obligation to pay interest on the delayed amounts.
Headnote:
GRATUITY - DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT GRATUITY - Statute 1989, Section 40(2); Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, Rule 49(5)(a) - The court discussed the provisions of the OUAT Employees' (Conditions of Service) Statute, 1989, particularly Section 40(2), which outlines the entitlement to gratuity, and the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, which mandates the payment of gratuity within a year, failing which interest is payable. The court interpreted these provisions to establish that the delay in payment was due to administrative lapses, thus entitling the petitioner to interest on the delayed gratuity payment.
JUDGMENT
Sashikanta Mishra, J.
The petitioner in the present writ application seeks a direction to the Opposite Party-Authorities to pay the balance amount towards Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity along with statutory interest.
2. The facts, relevant only for deciding the lis are as follows:-
2.1 . The petitioner joined as Lecturer in Chemistry in the College of Basic Science and Humanities of Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT) on 07.11.1969.
2.2 She was promoted to the post of Reader/Associate Professor on 12.11.1986 in which capacity she continued till her voluntary retirement on 31.07.2007. By then, she had rendered 38 years of service and as such was eligible for payment of gratuity under Clause 16(1) of the OUAT Employees' (Conditions of Service) Statute, 1989 (for short, 'Statute, 1989').
2.3 . She submitted an application on 10.7.2007 to the Registrar of the University for Payment of gratuity at an early date, which had not been paid. She was however paid unutilized leave salary and total provident funds dues under the contributory provident fund scheme.
2.4 Challenging the inaction of the authorities in paying her gratuity, she approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.11093 of 2010 for appropriate direction. During pendency of the said writ petition, the authorities disbursed a sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs towards retirement gratuity without paying interest.
2.5 The petitioner claims that she is entitled to enhanced gratuity of Rs.7.5 lakhs as per resolution dated 02.04.2011 of the government in Finance Department read with the proviso to Section 40(2) of the Statute, 1989. As per the said government Resolution, employees who retired between 01.01.2006 to 30.11.2008 are entitled to Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity upto a maximum of Rs.7.50 lakhs. Since she was paid only Rs.2.50 lakhs on 01.09.2010, she is entitled to receive balance amount of Rs.5 lakhs.
2.6 During pendency of the present writ petition, OUAT, by order dated 28.09.2013 disbursed the differential gratuity amounting to Rs.5 lakhs in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the amount was credited to the account of the petitioner. The basic relief claimed in the writ petition having thus been granted, the petitioner only claims statutory interest on the gratuity amount for its delayed payment.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the University wherein all the relevant facts have been admitted. It is further stated that the petitioner is entitled to enhanced gratuity as per the government Resolution, but the University being an aided institution of the State Government, the differential amount would be paid after receipt of funds for the purpose. The petitioner's basic gratuity of Rs.2.50 lakhs was paid after complying with the objections and official formalities. It is further admitted that the University follows all rules, regulations of the State Government relating to pension/grant of pensionary benefits mutatis mutandis. As such, as per the government Resolution, the petitioner is entitled to receive enhanced gratuity for which concurrence of the Finance Department was sought for by the University.
4. Heard Mr. Karunakar Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.C Rath, learned counsel for the OUAT and Mr. S.N. Patanaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
5. Mr. Jena would argue that though the gratuity, including the enhanced gratuity, was paid to the petitioner, yet the same was after inordinate delay. The provision of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 mandates that gratuity must be paid within a year, failing which interest shall be payable on the said amount. In the instant case, the petitioner admittedly retired on 31.07.2007 and therefore, gratuity including the enhanced gratuity ought to have been disbursed in her favour latest by 31.07.2008. However, gratuity amounting to Rs.2.50 lakhs was released only on 01.09.2010 and the balance amounting of Rs.5 lakhs was released on 26.11.2013. Such delay is only on account of admi