Gratuity is a statutory right under Article 300-A, and delays in claims can complicate entitlement, necessitating timely payment based on established service and pay.

ORDER

(Made by Hon’ble Chief Justice)

The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.09.2023 passed in WP (C) No.59 of 2022, whereby the plea of the writ petitioner for grant of gratuity and other benefits have been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners, who are appellants herein submitted that the appellants have been deprived of gratuity for the services rendered and also leave encashment.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has vehemently contended that the appellants had accepted the Golden Handshake / VR Scheme and due to genuine reasons, the establishment could not be continued. After negotiation with Workmen / Union, it has been decided to enter into a scheme by which all the employees have been paid the benefits in terms of Golden Handshake / VR Scheme. He further contended that it is true that some of the employees had already knocked at the doors of the Court and obtained some relief. But in the present case on hand, the appellants / writ petitioners have approached this Court after a lapse of 21 years of the cessation of employer & employee relationship and at this point of time, it is very difficult to have access to the scheme, based on which the benefits have been extended to all the employees. He also contended that there is no chance of getting those documents at this stage to ascertain about the genuineness of the claim made by the appellants.

4. It is an accepted position that Gratuity and pension are not the bounties. The amount of gratuity to be received by an employee is a property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and the statutory right to property cannot be taken away without following due process of law. The concern expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court impressing that the retirement dues must be paid in time, is reflected, in the case of Dr.Uma Agarwal vs. State of U.P., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438 , and the observation needs as under:-

“....grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the government servant. The Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs . Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the Rules/Instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case .”

5. In this case, the employer has not disputed the actual years of service and the last drawn pay of Rs.2000/ per month. However, there is no evidence adduced on the side of the appellants to establish that they are entitled for leave encashment. The writ petitioners/appellants cannot convert this Court as an adjudicating Court and compel this Court to decide about the amount which they are entitled to.

6. Insofar as gratuity is concerned, the factum of years of service and last drawn pay is not in dispute. Considering the fact that there was a golden handshake scheme, by which the employees have been disengaged from service, the employees have to be paid gratuity. It is pertinent to state here that the employees have approached this Court without going before the appropriate authority, claiming gratuity and that there is also delay of 21 years in seeking the relief.

7. Before proceeding with the issue involved herein, for better appreciation, Sections 7 and 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are extracted hereunder:

“7. Determination of the amount of gratuity:

(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in wr