Karnataka High Court
Chief Executive Officer vs Shri S N Kalegowda on 12 May, 2022
Bench: K.S.Mudagal
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MAY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
WRIT PETITION No.46017/2017 (L-PG)
R
C/w
WRIT PETITION No.46019/2017 (L-PG)
WRIT PETITION No.46105/2017 (L-PG)
WRIT PETITION No.46106/2017 (L-PG)
WRIT PETITION No.46107/2017 (L-PG)
WRIT PETITION No.46108/2017 (L-PG)
W.P.No.46017/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MYSURU - 570 005
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PANCHAYAT RAJ
ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION
PIRIYAPATNA
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI K.V.PUTTARAJU
S/O VEERATHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RAVANDURU, PIRIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107
2. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND
GRATUITY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
MYSORE DIVISION, MYSURU - 570 001
3. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
REGION-2, DAIRY CIRCLE
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
2
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 029 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAGHUVEER R SATTIGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2014 (ANNEXURE-C) PASSED BY
THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND GRATUITY
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, MYSORE AND QUASH AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2016 (ANNEXURE-D) PASSED BY THE
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
REGION-2, BENGALURU.
W.P.No.46019/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MYSURU 570 005
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION
PIRIYAPATNA MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION
K.R.NAGAR
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI S.N.KALEGOWDA
S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
M.SHETTAHALLI, PIRIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107
2. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND
GRATUITY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
MYSORE DIVISION
MYSURU - 570 001
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
3
3. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
REGION-2, DAIRY CIRCLE
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 029 ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAGHUVEER R SATTIGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2014 (ANNEXURE-C) PASSED BY
THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND GRATUITY
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, MYSORE AND QUASH AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2016 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
REGION-2, BENGALURU.
W.P.No.46105/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MYSURU - 570 005
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION
PIRIYAPATNA, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107 ..PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI RAMASHETTY
S/O SANNASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
CHILKUNDA, HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
2. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND
GRATUITY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
MYSORE DIVISION, MYSURU - 570 001 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAGHUVEER R SATTIGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R2)
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
4
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2014 (ANNEXURE-C) PASSED BY
THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND GRATUITY
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, MYSORE.
W.P.No.46106/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MYSURU - 570 005
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION
PIRIYAPATNA, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI B.T.THAMMEGOWDA
S/O BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
BHUVANAHALLI, BETTADAPURA HOBLI
PIRIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107
2. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND
GRATUITY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
MYSORE DIVISION
MYSURU - 570 001 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAGHUVEER R SATTIGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2014 (ANNEXURE-C) PASSED BY
THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND GRATUITY
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, MYSORE.
W.P.No.46107/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MYSURU - 570 005
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
5
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION
PIRIYAPATNA
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI D.PADMARAJU
S/O K.M.DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
KAMPALAPURA, PIRIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107
2. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND
GRATUITY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
MYSORE DIVISION
MYSURU - 570 001 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAGHUVEER R SATTIGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2014 (ANNEXURE-C) PASSED BY
THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND GRATUITY
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, MYSORE.
W.P.No.46108/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MYSURU 570 005
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION
PIRIYAPATNA
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE)
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
6
AND:
1. SANNATHAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
a) SMT.JAYALAKSHMI
W/O SANNATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
b) SMT.ANASUYA
D/O SANNATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
c) SHRI RAGHU K S
S/O SANNATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
d) SMT.SAVITHA
D/O SANNATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT
KELAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
RAVANDURU HOBLI
PIRIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107
2. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND
GRATUITY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
MYSORE DIVISION, MYSURU - 570 001
3. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
REGION-2, DAIRY CIRCLE
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 029 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R2 & R3;
R1(a) to r1(d) SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2014 (ANNEXURE-C) PASSED BY
THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND GRATUITY
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, MYSORE AND QUASH AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2016 (ANNEXURE-D) PASSED BY THE
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
7
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
REGION-2, BENGALURU.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13TH APRIL 2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The above petitions are filed seeking quashing of the
orders of the Controlling Authority/Appellate Authority under
the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('the Act' for short)
awarding gratuity amount claimed by respondent No.1 with
interest at 10% per annum.
The particulars of the impugned orders are as follows:
Date of order
Sl. Amount
Writ petition Controlling Appellate
No. awarded
Authority Authority
1 46017/2017 16.12.2014 06.01.2016 85,758/-
2 46019/2017 15.12.2014 06.01.2016 84,116/-
3 46105/2017 15.12.2014 - 1,24,615/-
4 46106/2017 15.12.2014 - 1,59,547/-
5 46107/2017 17.12.2014 - 1,81,220/-
6 46108/2017 16.12.2014 06.01.2016 47,114/-
2. The petitioners are the Government bodies being
part of the Department of Panchayat Raj. Respondent No.1 in
the above cases were initially employed as daily wage
workers. The Government by its order regularized the
services of respondent No.1 with certain cut off dates.
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
Respondent No.1 retired from the services on receiving their
pension amounts and gratuity.
3. After such retirement, they submitted the
applications before the Controlling Authority claiming that
they were entitled to gratuity from the date of their induction
as daily wage workers. The particulars of date of appointment
as daily wage workers, date of their regularization, date of
retirement, date of applications and the amount received by
respondent No.1 are set out in the table below.
Date of
appointment Amount
R1 in Date of Date of
Sl as daily Date of in Rs.
Writ petition regularizatio application
No. wage worker retirement received by
n of service filed by R1
as claimed R1
by R1
1 46017/2017 10.03.1976 01.01.1990 31.10.2007 17.12.2013 58,500/-
2 46019/2017 1974 01.01.1990 31.08.2007 03.12.2013 56,875/-
3 46105/2017 03.08.1979 01.01.1990 30.06.2012 02.12.2013 1,80,000/-
4 46106/2017 10.02.1975 01.01.1990 30.06.2011 17.12.2013 80,088/-
5 46107/2017 01.02.1976 01.01.1990 30.06.2013 08.05.2014 1,92,700/-
6 46108/2017 03.08.1979 01.01.1990 30.06.2004 03.12.2013 23,963/-
4. The petitioners opposed the applications of
respondent No.1 on the ground that they were Government
employees and not employees under Section 2(e) of the Act,
therefore the Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to
entertain such claims. In some of the cases, the petitioners
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
preferred the appeals before the Appellate Authority. They
also came to be dismissed. Hence the above petitions.
5. The main ground of challenge is that respondent
No.1 were not the employees within the meaning of Section
2(e) of the Act, therefore the petitions were not maintainable.
It is contended that the impugned orders are without
jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
6. The petitions are opposed on two grounds. One is
that against the orders of the Controlling Authority, statutory
appeal as provided under Section 7 of the Act lies. Therefore
the petitions are not maintainable. Second contention is that
respondent No.1 were employees within the meaning of
Section 2(e) of the Act for the period commencing from their
induction as daily wage workers till their regularization.
Therefore the said period should have been taken into
consideration as the qualifying period of service for the
purpose of computing gratuity.
7. The petitioners admit that respondent No.1 were
the employees. The petitioners' witness in his cross-
examination admitted that respondent No.1 joined the
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
services of the petitioners as daily wage workers on the dates
mentioned in the table above and they worked as such since
their regularization on the dates mentioned against their
names in the table.
8. The only contention of the petitioners is that
Section 2(e) of the Act excludes the Government employees,
therefore respondent No.1 could not have invoked Section 7
of the Act. Similarly, the other contention is that since
respondent No.1 were not covered under the Act, respondent
Nos.2 and 3 had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications
of respondent No.1 for payment of gratuity.
9. Section 2(e) of the Act reads as follows:
"2(e) "employee" means any person (other than
an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the
terms of such employment are expressed or implied, in
any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in
connection with the work of the factory, mine, oilfield,
plantation, port, railway company, shop or other
establishment to which this Act applies, but does not
include any such person who holds a post under the
Central Government or State Government and is
governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for
payment of gratuity."
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
10. Of-course on their regularization, respondent No.1
were governed by the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR)
and they have received pension and gratuity on their
retirement. However, admittedly the petitioners paid gratuity
only covering the period from the date of their regularization
till their retirement on attaining superannuation. While so
paying gratuity, the petitioners did not take into consideration
the services rendered by respondent No.1 from the date of
their appointment as daily wage workers till the date of their
regularization. During that period, respondent No.1 were not
governed by the KCSR or for any other rules for payment of
gratuity.
11. Reading of the judgment in Sr.Superintendent of
Post Offices v. Gursewak Singh relied on by learned Counsel
for the petitioners shows that the said case involved the
services of Gramin Dak Sewak engaged as Extra
Departmental Agents. They were governed by Gramin Dak
Sewak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011. More so that
was not the case of regularization. Under the circumstances,
AIR 2019 SC 1493
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Dak Sewak were not
employees within the definition of Section 2(e) of the Act.
12. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dharam
Prakash Sharma2 relied on by learned Counsel for the
petitioners themselves, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
mere fact that the gratuity is provided for under the Pension
Rules will not disentitle the employees to get the payment of
gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore the
aforesaid two judgments in no way advance the case of the
petitioners.
13. In Municipal Corpn. Of Delhi v. Dharam Prakash
Sharma3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
notwithstanding separate pension rules, MCD employees were
entitled to the benefits under the provisions of 1972 Act in
view of overriding effect of the Act as per Section 14 of the
said Act.
[ 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 16 of the
latest judgment in Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh4
which was a similar case involving the regularized daily wage
workers as Government servants held as follows:
AIR 1999 SC 293
(1998) 7 SCC 221
(2018) 5 SCC 430
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
"16. In our considered opinion, once the State
regularized the services of the appellant while he was
in State services, the appellant became entitled to
count his total period of service for claiming the
gratuity amount subject to his proving continuous
service of 5 years as specified under Section 2-A of
the Act which, in this case, the appellant has duly
proved."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. In para 18 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court further held that on regularization of services
of daily wage worker, the State has no justifiable reasons to
deny the benefit of gratuity to him and that was his statutory
right under the Act. It was further held that Act being welfare
legislation meant for the benefit of the employees, who serve
their employer for a long time, it is the duty of the State to
voluntarily pay the gratuity amount to the appellant rather
than to force the employee to approach the Court to get his
genuine claim.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in
Nagar Nigam, Kanpur v. Mujib Ullah Khan5 which was
rendered subsequent to Gursewak Singh's case referred to
supra held that the employees of Nagar Nigam Kanpur were
(2019) 6 SCC 103
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
entitled to gratuity despite CCS (Pension) Rules provided for
them for payment of pension and gratuity in view of the fact
that the Central Government by notification dated 08.01.1982
specified that the local bodies where ten or more persons are
employed, the Act shall apply. It was further held that in view
of overriding effect of Section 14 of the Act and that payment
of gratuity is in the interest of employees, the gratuity would
be payable to the employees.
17. Further the two Division Benches of this Court in
case of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department v. Sri Putta and others and Smt.Mahadevamma
v. Assistant Executive Engineer & ors. held that regularized
employees of the departments of PWD and irrigation of the
State Government are entitled to the benefit of gratuity under
the Act.
18. In para 11 of the judgment in
Smt.Mahadevamma's case referred to supra this Court
following the judgment in Netram Sahu's case referring to
Section 248-A of the KCSR held as follows:
WA No.2761/2000 DD 06.12.2000
WA No.100/2013 DD 04.03.2021
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
"11. It is pertinent to note that the
interpretation put forth by the learned Single Judge
that in view of Rule 248A of the Rules, the provisions
of the Act would not apply cannot be sustained as the
Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation Delhi supra
has held that payment of Gratuity Act being a special
provision for payment of gratuity, unless there is any
provision therein which excludes its applicability to an
employee who is otherwise governed by provision of
Pension Rules, it is not possible to hold that an
employee is not entitled to gratuity under Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972. In view of aforesaid enunciation of
law by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Netram Sahu supra,
the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot
be sustained in the eye of law as the aforesaid
decision binds this Court."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. In the light of the aforesaid judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Netram Sahu's case referred to
supra and the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court
referred to supra, there is no merit in the contention that on
their regularization into service, respondent No.1 loose
benefit of the Act. The Controlling Authority considering the
admissions of the petitioners' witness regarding date of
employment of respondent No.1 as daily wage workers, their
regularization and non payment of gratuity for the period they
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
worked as daily wage workers and also referring to the
judgments of this Court, rightly rejected the contention of the
petitioners and passed the impugned orders.
20. In some of the cases, the petitioners did not even
file appeal before the Appellate Authority on the ground that
the Act is not applicable, therefore the order of the Controlling
Authority was without jurisdiction. In view of the discussions
made above, there is no merit in that contention. Having
regard to that, this Court does not find it necessary to refer to
the judgments relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioners
in that regard.
21. The only relief the petitioners are entitled at the
most is about the date from which the interest is payable. The
table of the dates of events show that some amongst
respondent No.1 filed applications before the Controlling
Authority after lapse of 10 years, 6 years and 2 years etc.
Probably they filed such applications after learning about
grant of gratuity in other cases by this Court. The petitioners
also being Government bodies and dealing with tax payers
money, this Court finds it just and proper to modify the order
W.P.No.46017/2017
C/w W.P.No.46019/2017, W.P.No.46105/2017
W.P.No.46106/2017, W.P.No.46107/2017
W.P.No.46108/2017
only with regard to the date from which the petitioners are
liable to pay the interest.
22. Therefore the petitions are partly allowed. The
impugned orders regarding payment of gratuity are
confirmed. The petitioners are jointly and severally liable to
pay the gratuity amount to respondent No.1 with interest
thereon at 10% per annum from the date of the applications
till the date of deposit.
If the amount is not deposited already, the petitioners
shall deposit the same before the Controlling Authority within
30 days from the date of this order.
The amount deposited, if any, shall be released to
respondent No.1/legal representatives of respondent No.1 if
not already released to them.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR
