Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK RUSIA, PRADEEP MITTAL
Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank – Appellant
Versus
Babita Mor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts and procedural history of the gratuity claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. conflicting arguments on forfeiture of gratuity under regulations versus statute. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. section 4(6) of gratuity act governs forfeiture, requiring actual loss or criminal conviction. (Para 7 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. analysis of precedents regarding the overriding nature of the gratuity act. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. service regulations cannot override the mandatory provisions of the payment of gratuity act. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. affirmation of single judge’s order based on statutory compliance. (Para 21) |
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
This appeal is filed against the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 21393 of 2021 whereby the petition filed by the writ petitioner was allowed and the Bank was directed to pay gratuity amount to the writ petitioner.
2. The respondent/writ petitioner is widow of late Rajesh Mor, who was dismissed officer of respondent-Bank. She claims gratuity that was payable to her deceased husband. The deceased husband of the petitioner, who was serving as a bank officer, was subjected to departmental proceedings
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....
Gratuity is a statutory right under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and cannot be forfeited without legal justification, even after dismissal for misconduct.
Termination of employment for alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude does not automatically justify gratuity forfeiture without proven loss or prosecution.
Gratuity forfeiture requires a conviction for moral turpitude; without such conviction, an employee remains entitled to gratuity despite termination for misconduct.
Gratuity cannot be withheld in cases of termination by punishment without evidence of financial loss to the employer.
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 main legal point established is that a dismissed employee's entitlement to gratuity is determined by the relevant service regulations and the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
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
