THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.3818 of 2019

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner, briefly as per the writ affidavit, is that the

2^nd respondent was an employee of the petitioner-MVSR Engineering College. She joined the service as ‘Steno-typist’ in 1981 and was later promoted as Superintendent and she retired from service in 2014. The petitioner paid her the gratuity amount of Rs.4,67,013. It is the case of the petitioner that Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was amended in the year 1997, wherein it was clarified that teaching staff would not fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘employee’, and the petitioner-college is covered under the said amendment and therefore the 2^nd respondent is not entitled to gratuity for the period 1981 to 1996. It is the further case of the petitioner that a batch of writ petitions challenging the amendment is pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25764 of 2014 and batch, and this writ petition is similar to those writ petitions. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent-employee has moved an application before the 1^st respondent-Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, and the Authority has taken the application on file and numbered it as P.G.Case No.12 of 2018 and posted the case to 14.11.2018 and proceeding to adjudicate the matter; and if any order is passed against the petitioner in the P.G.Case, the petitioner would be put to

irreparable loss.

respondent. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions in line with the writ affidavit.

4. Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent contends that the 2^nd respondent is entitled to gratuity for the period from 1981 to 1996 as the 2^nd respondent is not a teacher/teaching faculty and the amendment is applicable only to teaching faculty, and therefore denial of balance gratuity of Rs.4,02,070/- pertaining to the period 1981 to 1996 is illegal and arbitrary.

5. This Court, by Order dated 25.03.2019, passed the following interim order:

“There shall be stay of the impugned order subject to condition that the petitioner pays 50% of the amount adjudicated by the Authority.”

6. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it is to be noted that the 2^nd respondent is claiming gratuity for the entire period she rendered service in the petitioner-college i.e., from the date of appointment in 1981 till the date of retirement in 2014, whereas she was paid the gratuity only for the period from 1997 to 2014 which is Rs.4,67,013; whereas the gratuity for the period from 1981 to 1996 which is Rs.4,02,070 has not been paid by the petitioner citing amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner sought stay of proceedings before the 1^st respondent-Authority, and this Court granted a conditional order of stay in 2019, subject to payment of 50% of the gratuity amount to be adjudicated before the 1^st respondent-Authority. We are in 2025. The conditional order is admittedly not complied by the petitioner, and therefore the petitioner is deemed to have no grievance with regard to continuation of proceedings in the P.G.Case No.12 of 2018 before the 1^st respondent-Authority. Further, keeping the writ petition pending would amount to permitting the petitioner to pursue parallel proceedings against the same grievance; and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The interim order dated 25.03.2019 stands vacated. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

08^th July, 2025 Smk