The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 overrides other rules, ensuring employees receive most favorable Gratuity benefits.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The entitlement of the petitioners, who were employees under the Institute of Management in Government, to receive Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is the issue arising for consideration in this writ petition. 2. The petitioners state that they were employees of the 3^rd respondent-Institute of Management in Government. They retired from service during 2019 and 2020 while working as Section Officers / Campus Manager. The Government issued Ext.P1 G.O. dated 12.02.2021 revising pension and other related benefits consequent to the Pay Revision 2019. Later, the 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P2 proceedings enhancing Gratuity ceiling from ₹14 lakhs to ₹17 lakhs for the non-academic staff. The revision was to be effective from 01.04.2021. The petitioners state that prescription of ceiling in Gratuity benefits is in violation of the provisions of the .

3. The petitioners urge that this Court in Exts.P3 to P5 judgments has held that employees are entitled to receive Gratuity amount under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 , if the Gratuity amount is more beneficial to the employees under the Act, 1972. The petitioners state that the Government of India issued Ext.P6 Gazette Notification dated 29.03.2018 notifying that 29.03.2018 is the date on which the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2018 shall come into force. The Central Government has enhanced the Gratuity ceiling to ₹20 lakhs with effect from 29.03.2018.

4. The petitioners were granted ₹14 lakhs as Gratuity taking the arbitrary ceiling limit of ₹14 lakhs. The petitioners state that in view of Section 7 (3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 , the petitioners are entitled to payment of interest for delayed payment of Gratuity. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to Gratuity amount of ₹20 lakhs.

5. The petitioners contend that Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act will override other enactments. The action of the respondents in denying due Gratuity to the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners are entitled to payment of Gratuity as per the limits prescribed by the Act, 1972 along with 10% interest.

6. The 3^rd respondent opposed the writ petition.

The 3^rd respondent submitted that the Institute has its own service rules. Ext.R3(a) service rules are framed by adopting the rules applicable to the State Government employees, wherever such service rules are silent. For payment of DCRG, there is no specific provision in the ING Rules. ING has a Group Gratuity Scheme.

7. The Pay Revisions introduced by the Government in the year 2021 as per Ext.R3(c) was adopted by the 3^rd respondent. As per Clause 6 of the Government Order, the ceiling limit of DCRG of State Government employees has been enhanced to ₹17 lakhs with effect from 01.04.2021. The 3^rd respondent agreed to implement the revised the DCRG limits of ₹17 lakhs as per a decision taken in its 151^st meeting.

8. The respondents submitted that the present ceiling limit of DCRG is part of the Pay Revision package. The petitioners cannot, on the one hand, accept the Pay Revision package and dispute the ceiling limit on the other hand. The petitioners are eligible to DCRG only up to a limit of ₹14 lakhs. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

9. The 2^nd respondent filed a counter affidavit.

The 2^nd respondent also submitted that enhancement of Gratuity ceiling to ₹20 lakhs by the Central Government will not be applicable to State Government employees as they are governed by KSR. As the 3^rd respondent-Institution has come under the purview of KSR, the employees of the 3^rd respondent cannot claim Gratuity amount over and above ₹14 lakhs.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitio