Railway employees are exempt from the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as per amendments and judicial interpretations, affirming that Railway Service (Pension) Rules govern their gratuity rights.

JUDGMENT :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

W.A.Nos.1130, 1141 and 1181 of 2016 are filed by the appellants-Railways aggrieved by the common dated 26.07.2016 passed by single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.21535, 17925, and 17562 of 2016, respectively. Writ Petition Nos.46004 of 2016, 10983 of 2018, 5564 of 2020, 30041 and 30045 of 2023 are filed by the employees aggrieved by the common order dated 20.01.2020 in O.A.No.912 of 2018, 134 and 468 of 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

2. Since the issue involved in all these matters is one and the same, all the Appeals and Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Heard Ms. L.Pranathi Reddy, learned senior Standing Counsel for appellants in W.A.Nos.1130, 1141 and 1181 of 2016; learned Dy.Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.1 in all writ appeals; Sri MPVNV Sastry, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in W.A.No.1130 of 2016; Smt S.Siva Kumari, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in WA Nos.1141 and 1181 of 2016.

4. Heard Ms. Ch.Lakshmi Kumari, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.46004 of 2016, Sri S.Srinivasa Rao Siddanti, learned counsel for petitioners in W.P.Nos.10983 of 2018, 30041 of 2023, 30045 of 2023 and 5564 of 2020; learned Govt.Pleader for Labour appearing for respondent in WP No.46004 of 2016; Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Dy. Solicitor General of India appearing for Central Government in WP Nos.10983 of2018, 30041 and 30045 of 2023; Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in W.P.Nos.10983 of 2018, 30041 and 30045 of 2023; Sri T.S.Venkataramana, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in WP No.5564 of 2020.

W.A.Nos.1130, 1141 and 1181 of 2016:

5. For convenience, the facts in Writ Appeal No.1141 of 2016 are referred hereunder:

5.1. The 2nd respondent was appointed on 13.10.1978 as Ticket Collector and retired from service on 31.12.2013 as Chief Ticket Inspector in appellant-Railways on attaining the age of superannuation and has put up 35 years and two months service. 2nd respondent was granted gratuity of Rs.7,38,920/- immediately after his superannuation. However, according to 2nd respondent, the gratuity amount paid to him is less than the entitlement as per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, which comes to Rs.9,04,272/- and thus, still Rs.1,65,352/- was due from the appellants. The 2nd respondent submitted representation to the appellants and the same was rejected by the appellants herein on the ground that gratuity amount was calculated as per the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, which is applicable to the 2nd respondent, therefore, he is not entitled for any further amount.

5.2. Respondent No.2 filed application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, ‘Act, 1972’) vide P.G. Application No.8 of 2015. The appellants herein filed a detailed counter and the controlling authority, on due consideration of the contentions put-forth on behalf of 2nd respondent as well as appellants herein, allowed the application vide order dated 10.09.2015 and held that 2nd respondent was entitled to gratuity as per the Act, 1972 and directed the appellants herein to pay balance amount of Rs.1,65,352/- along with interest @ 10% per annum.

5.3. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2015, appellants herein preferred W.P.No.17925 of 2016 and the learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 26.07.2016 passed common order and disposed of the writ petition along with other writ petitions granting liberty to the appellants herein to avail alternative remedy of appeal before the controlling authority. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2016, appellants herein filed the present appeal.

5.4. It is finally contended that the Controlling Authority under the Act, 1972 has erroneously allowed the