Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
B. Sathaiah – Petitioner
Versus
The Chief General Manager (Personnel) Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd. – Respondent
W.P. No. 1999 of 2014
Decided On : 14-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 21, 300-A - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 4, 4(1), 4(2), 4(6) - Equality before law - State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection - No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law - No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law - Whether retirement is a result of rules of superannuation or physical disablement or impairment of vital part of body - it is quite apparent that gratuity is a property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and as such, it is a constitutional right which cannot be taken away except by authority of law.
Findings of the Court:
It is quite apparent that gratuity is a property within meaning of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and as such, it is a constitutional right which cannot be taken away except by authority of law - Present case petitioner rendered services to Respondent Company and petitioner's case does not fall under Section 4(6) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which deals with cases in which gratuity can be forfeited - Court opines that petitioner's right to gratuity is a constitutional right which cannot be infringed illegally, arbitrarily.
Result: Ordered Accordingly.
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri W.B. Srinivas, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents.
2. The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the advance Intimation of Retirement in No. RG-3/OC/MGR/P-012/4631. dated 01.11.2013 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to the record, and set aside the same and also consequently direct the direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of superannuation based on his date of birth as 10.05.1959.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
(b) Initially, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 21.11.1954 and there was no requirement to submit any certificate with regard to noting date of birth in the official records.
(c) The petitioner studied in Government High School (Boys) Jammikunta and passed 7th class. The petitioner appeared SSC as a private candidate in the year 1983 and passed. In both the certificates the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 10.05.1959.
(d) For promotion to the post of Short Fire, the minimum qualification is SSC. The petitioner applied for the said post on the basis of SSC qualification and he was allowed to write the examination. The petitioner passed the said examination and promoted to the post of Short Fire in the year 1991. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sardar and again promoted to the post of Overman in the year 1995.
(e) The respondent authorities issued notice through news paper on 25.08.2012 calling for objections with regard to the date of birth of employees. The petitioner submitted his objections vide application dated 29.08.2012 and the same was considered by the respondent authorities and corrected the date of birth in official records as 10.05.1959.
(f) The date of birth of the petitioner was arbitrarily determined by the Area Level Age Determination Committee on 28.02.2005 as 31.01.1957 without notice or opportunity to him.
(g) As per Circular dated 23.12.2003 for Matriculates/SSC personnel, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct and will not be changed under any circumstances, as per Implementation of Instructions No. 76. Once the respondents have accepted SSC certificate of the petitioner and recorded date of birth as 10.05.1959, they are estopped to change the same.
(h) The respondents issued advance intimation of retirement by letter dated 01.11.2013 informing the petitioner that he will be retiring from service on 30.11.2014 basing on date of birth as 24.11.1954.
(i) In similar circumstances, the High Court in W.P. No. 20029 of 2005 allowed the writ petition on 07.08.2013 holding that when once the respondents acted on the certificates of qualification of employees, they cannot deny the benefits to the employees. Since SSC certificate of the petitioner has been accepted, the respondents are bound to accept the date of the petitioner as 10.05.1959, but they failed to do so. Hence, this writ petition.
4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is as follows:
(b) As per Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry (JBCCI), the procedure in determination of the age/date of birth at the time of appointment is as follows:
“(A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment:
(i) Matriculates: In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations, the
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....
1. Departmental proceedings cannot be continued and a penalty cannot be imposed after an employee has ceased to be in service, in the absence of a specific provision for continuation of the proceedin....
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....
An employer cannot dispute an employee's recorded birth date post-retirement to deny service benefits, affirming that such objections constitute negligence.
Once full amount of gratuity becomes payable to the employee due to the consequences of law, then the right to get statutory interest in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, cannot ....
Gratuity is a statutory entitlement not subject to withholding after superannuation absent explicit legal grounds for forfeiture, emphasizing employee protection under the Act.
Writ petition decision underscores that withholding terminal benefits violates statutory rights under labor law, mandating their release with interest.
Retiral benefits, including gratuity and pension, constitute vested property rights under Article 300A; delayed payment breaches the right to livelihood under Article 21, and employers must timely se....
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
