MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Mr Justice D. KRISHNAKUMAR
CAPT. RC RAJAN – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF COAST – Respondent
WP/14440/2009
GRATUITY - PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 - SECTION 4(1)(B) - CCS (PENSION) RULES, 1972 - RULE 48 - RETIREMENT - RESIGNATION - ENTITLEMENT TO GRATUITY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an ex-Coast Guard officer, served for 16 years and resigned from service on compassionate grounds. He applied for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, but his request was rejected by the respondent on the ground that he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service as required under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to gratuity under Section 4(1)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as he had completed more than 5 years of continuous service. The court found that the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, were not applicable to the petitioner as he was not a government servant governed by those rules.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 4(1)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which provides that gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years. The court held that the petitioner had completed more than 5 years of continuous service and was therefore entitled to gratuity.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to settle the gratuity amount with appropriate interest in accordance with law within 12 weeks.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.NO.14440 OF 2009
AND
M.P.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2009
Capt.RC Rajan (Ex.Comdt 0080-E)
... Petitioner
.Vs.
The Director General of Coast Guard,
Tatrakshak Mukhalaya,
Coast Guard Head Quarters,
National Stadium Complex,
New Delhi- 110 001.
... Respondent
PRAYER:-
Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records relating to the order of the respondent in his
proceedings in OF/0303/0080-E, dated 11.05.2009 and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondent to release and
disburse the gratuity payable to the petitioner for his 16 long
years of service in Coast Guard.
For petitioner :
Mr.Balakrishnan
For Mr.Ravi
For Respondent :
Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy
Central Government
Standing Counsel
O R D E R
The Writ Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
passed in OF/0303/0080-E, dated 11.05.2009, rejecting the
request for payment of gratuity and for a consequential
direction to the respondent to release and disburse the gratuity
amount payable to the petitioner for his 16 years of service as
Coast Guard.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2. It is the case of the petitioner that originally the
petitioner had joined service as Coast Guard in the year 1983
and served in the capacity of a Staff Pilot, Squadron Commander,
Commanding Officer, Instrument rating examiner and a Pilot
instructor. As such he had served 16 long years without any
break and the petitioner was awarded DGCG Commendation, the
Tatrakshak Medal for meritorious service, the Proficiency Award
and the Safety Award for accident/incident free flying during
the service in Coast Guard. The petitioner had been put in very
meritorious service without any blemishes in record of service.
On completing his 16 years of service in the post of Coast
Guard, owing to pressing family compulsions, the petitioner
requested respondent, to accept his resignation. Accepting the
said letter of the resignation, the respondent had relieved the
petitioner w.e.f. 1st July 1999 on compassionate grounds.
Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for the disbursement of
gratuity on 09.07.2000. But to the shock and surprise, the
respondent by letter dated 26.07.2000, has informed that as per
the Rules the petitioner did not complete 20 years of qualifying
service in the department and therefore, as per Rule 26(1) of
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, resignation from a service as post
entails forfeiture of past service. In view of the above, the
petitioner is not entitled for payment of any gratuity.
Challenging the aforesaid rejection order passed by the
respondent, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition
before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
respondent has rejected the request for gratuity in the light of
CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and the said rule will not be
applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner had not sought for
any amount under the Pension Rule. As per Section 4(1) of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 the gratuity shall be payable to
an employee in the termination of his employment after rendering
continuous service for not less than five years. Hence, the
petitioner is entitled for gratuity amount as he has completed
more than 5 years of continuous service. He further submitted
that the gratuity shall be payable even to the employee/
delinquent resigned from service provided he shall be put in
five years of continuous service. In this case, the petitioner
after serving 16 long years, on his own request, he was relieved
from service. Hence, the order impugned in this petition is
liable to be set aside.
4. The respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the
petitioner se
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.