Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24933
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.Krishna Kumar, J
Sandeep Prakash Durgekar – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director Karnataka Fisheries Development Corporation – Respondent
WP No. 15465 of 2025
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Terminal Benefits
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Service Law - Terminal benefits - Delayed payment - Interest - When terminal dues are withheld by the employer despite representation and legal notice, the respondent is liable to pay the dues along with interest, particularly when there is no dispute regarding the accuracy of the calculation provided by the petitioner. (Paras 3, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
After the superannuation and subsequent demise of an employee, the legal heir approached the court seeking a direction to the employer to release terminal and pending dues along with interest. Despite representations and a legal notice submitted to the employer, the dues remained unpaid, forcing the legal heir to file a writ petition.
Findings of Court:
Terminal benefits represent a vested right and property under law. The employer's failure to release the dues despite the legal obligation created an entitlement for the petitioner to receive the amount along with interest as calculated and agreed upon in the proceedings.
Issues: Whether the withholding of terminal dues by the employer constitutes a violation of the employee's fundamental and constitutional rights, and whether the legal heir is entitled to the release of these dues with interest.
Ratio Decidendi: Terminal benefits are not ex-gratia payments but legal entitlements that constitute property under the Constitution. Depriving an employee or their legal heir of such property without the authority of law is unconstitutional; therefore, the employer is duty-bound to disburse the outstanding payments with interest.
Result: Petition allowed; respondent directed to release the outstanding dues within 15 days.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vidyadhar M. Durgekar
For the Respondents: Maruthi S., G. Ramesh Naik
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal heirs are entitled to unpaid retirement dues of deceased employees. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. terminal benefits like leave encashment are property protected under article 300a. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. parties may agree on interest rates for settlement of terminal dues. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court directs timely disbursement of admitted unpaid terminal benefits. (Para 8 , 9) |
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 READ WITH THE ARTICLE 21 AND 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO RELEASE ALL THE PENDING DUES OF LATE PRAKASH DURGEKAR WITH INTEREST AT THE PREVAILING SBI MCLR RATES AMOUNTING TO RUPEES SIX LAKHS FIFTY SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO TO THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED EMPLOYEE THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER WHO IS THE WIFE OF THE DECEASED EMPLOYEE OF KFDC MR. PRAKASH C DURGEKAR IN PURSUANCE OF LEGAL NOTICE AT ANNX-C AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“1. The Respondent may be directed to release all the pending dues of late Prakash Durgekar with interest at the prevailing SBIMCLR rates amounting to Rupees Six lakhs fifty six thousand three hundred twenty-two to the legal heir of the deceased employee the mother of the Petitioner who is the wife of the deceased employee of KFDC Mr Prakash C Durgekar in pursuance of the Legal Notice dated 27.03.2024 placed at Annexure C”
2. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to consider directing the respondents to give a compassionate employment to the petitioner, for the untimely demise of his father.
3. Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant any other prayer to uphold the justice”.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned AGA for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that petitioner is the son of one late Prakash C. Durgekar, who retired on 31.05.2015. Prior to his expiry on 20.06.2022, the said Prakash C. Durgekar addressed several communications/letters/representations to respondent No.1 for settlement of his pending dues which was preceded by a communication dated 05.10.2015 addressed to the petitioner's father by the respondent No.1, whereby, it was stated that petitioner would be entitled to the pending dues. Subsequently, the aforesaid Prakash C. Durgekar having expired on 20.06.2022, the petitioner and his mother submitted representations as well as issued a legal notice, despite which the respondents did not clear the pending dues payable to the petitioner which is on account of the demise of his father and as such, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon order of this Court in the case of H. Channaiah v. The Chief Executive Officer and Others in W.P.No.5016/2024 dated 25.04.2024 which reads as hereunder:-
“The petitioner, who dedicatedly served as a Waterman in the office of respondent No.3 from 29.8.1979 until his superannuation on 31.1.2013, seeks redressal for non-payment of earned leave encashment by the Grama Panchayath.
2. Upon the petitioner's retirement, the Accountant General's office meticulously prepared a detailed statement encompassing the petitioner's service data and the pension payable. Subsequently, the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayath and the Taluka Executive Officer of Pavagada Taluka Panchayath issued directives emphasizing the urgency of settling the petitioner's earned leave encashment.
3. Regrettably, despite the clear directives, the Grama Panchayath released only a fraction of the earned leave amounting to Rs.70,000/-, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs.1,32,200/-.
4. The Grama Panchayath, in its response, raised objections to the petitioner's claim, disputing his employment status. The Grama Panchayath conten
