Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 1397
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J
JETPUR NAVAGADH MUNICIPALITYV/sVITHHALBHAI BACHUBHAI KAPADIYA
C/SCA/17148/2025 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17148 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bhavesh P Trivedi, RR Trivedi
For the Respondents:
The High Court may decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India when the disputed amount involved in the petition is insignificantly small.
Headnote:The petitioner municipality challenged orders passed by the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, regarding the short payment of gratuity to a retired clerk. The dispute centered on whether the respondent's service began on 15.02.1991 or 25.08.1995, leading to a difference in the gratuity amount of Rs. 67,933 plus 10% interest. The court considered whether it should exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The court reasoned that "Considering the smallness of amount, this Court deems it fit not to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India." the petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute regarding the calculation of gratuity based on the date of initial appointment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. discretionary refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction due to the small amount in dispute. (Para 5) |
| 3. direction for the disbursement of awarded gratuity to the workman. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner – Municipality against the order dated 20.2.2025 passed by the Controlling Authority, Rajkot under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) in Gratuity Case No. 1999 of 2024, whereby, the learned Authority has granted benefits of gratuity to the respondent herein to the tune of Rs.67,933/- alongwith 10% interest and the order dated 5.8.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, Rajkot in Gratuity Appeal No. 110 of 2025, whereby the Appellate authority has rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority.
2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the respondent was serving as a Clerk in the petitioner Municipality. According to him, he was initially appointed as Peon/Clerk on 15.02.1991 and retired on 31.07.2024 upon attaining the age of superannuation. He claimed that he had completed 33 years of service and that his last drawn salary was Rs.23,550/-. The petitioner Municipality paid Rs.3,94,010/- towards gratuity; however, the respondent contended that he was entitled to Rs.4,48,356/- and therefore filed an application before the Controlling Authority, Rajkot, being Gratuity Case No.199 of 2024, alleging short payment of gratuity.
2.1 The petitioner Municipality filed its objections contending that the respondent was initially appointed on a contractual basis for a period of 90 days and was regularly appointed only from 25.08.1995, and therefore the gratuity was rightly calculated. The Controlling Authority, vide order dated 20.02.2025, partly allowed the application and directed payment of Rs.67,933/- with 10% interest.
2.2 Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Gratuity Appeal No.110 of 2025; however, the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 05.08.2025, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority. Hence, the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
5. Though various grounds have been raised in the memo of petition, the fact remains that the total amount involved in the petition is only Rs.67,933/-. Considering the smallness of amount, this Court deems it fit not to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the matter only on the ground of smallness of amount with a further clarification that this may not be considered as precedent in other matters, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. The petitioner-Municipality is directed to deposit the amount of gratuity as awarded by the Controlling Authority and the same shall be disbursed in favour of the respondent-workman, after verifying his bank details and after following due procedure, through RTGS/NEFT, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of order of this Court.
