Madras High Court
P. Manivannan vs Ministry Of Finance on 30 June, 2025
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
and
W.M.P. Nos.156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 603 and 604 of 2022
and W.M.P. Nos.9651, 9652, 9654 and 9659 of 2024
1. P. Manivannan
2. P. Sundaravadivelu
3. V. Rajendran
4. S. Syed Musheer Ahmed
5. N. Murugesan .. Petitioners common in
W.P. Nos.143 & 558 / 2022
1. S. Balu
2. G. Pannerselvam
3. R. Sekar
4. N. Thambidurai
5. S. Manogaran
6. R. Annamalai
7. K. Saminathan
8. K. Sockalingam
9. V.C. Madhu
10. A. Palani
11. Swami Srinivasa Rao .. Petitioners common in
W.P. Nos.144 & 146 / 2022
vs.
1. Ministry of Finance
Department of Public Enterprises,
represented by its Under Secretary,
Lodi Road, CGO Complex,
Block No.14, New Delhi - 110 003.
1/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
2. Madras Fertilizers Limited,
represented by its Chairman &
Managing Director,
Manali, Chennai - 600 068.
3. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan, Chennai - 600 006. .. Respondents common in
all W.Ps.
4. Department of Fertilizers,
Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers,
represented by its Secretary,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110 001 (INDIA). .. 4th Respondent in
[impleaded as per the order dated 28.03.2024 in W.P. No.558/2022
W.M.P. No.9657/2024 in W.P. No.558/2022]
PRAYER in W.P. No.143 of 2022: This Writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the Office Memorandum dated
10.07.2018 issued by the 1st respondent and to quash the same to the extent it
makes the payment of the enhanced gratuity under the Office Memorandum
dated 03.08.2017 subject to the 'affordability' of the CPSEs concerned
effective for the period from 01.01.2017 to 28.03.2018 and to consequently
direct the 2nd respondent to pay the petitioners the enhanced gratuity under
the Office Memoranudm dated 03.08.2017 issued by the 1st respondent.
PRAYER in W.P. No.558 of 2022: This Writ petition filed under Article
2/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling
for the records of the Impugned order dated 01.11.2021 in Gratuity Appeal
Nos.5, 7-10 / 2021 passed by the 3rd respondent and to quash the same as
being contrary to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
PRAYER in W.P. No.144 of 2022: This Writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling
for the records of the Impugned order dated 31.03.2021 in Gratuity Appeal
Nos.74, 75, 77, 78, 80-82, 87, 88, 90 and 92 / 2020 passed by the 3rd
respondent and to quash the same as being contrary to the provisions of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
PRAYER in W.P. No.146 of 2022: This Writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the Office Memorandum dated
10.07.2018 in No.W-02/0036/2018-DPE (WC) - GL - XIX / 18 issued by the
1st respondent and to quash the same to the extent it makes the payment of
the enhanced gratuity under the Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2017
subject to the affordability of the CPSEs concerned effective for the period
3/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
from 01.01.2017 to 28.03.2018 and to consequently direct the 2nd respondent
to pay the petitioners the enhanced gratuity under the Office Memorandum
dated 03.08.2017 issued by the 1st respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr. Pavan Kumar.G.
For Respondent : Mr. C. Samivel, SPL GSC,
[For R1 & R4]
Notice served, No appearance
[for R2]
Mr. B. Sudhir Kumar, SPC [for R3]
COMMON ORDER
These Writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the
Gratuity Appeal Nos.5, 7-10 / 2021 and Gratuity Appeal Nos.74, 75, 77, 78,
80-82, 87, 88, 90 and 92 / 2020 passed by the 3rd respondent and to quash the
Official Memorandum issued by the 1st respondent dated 10.07.2018 to the
extent it makes the payment of the enhanced gratuity under the Office
Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 that subject to the affordability of the CPSEs
concerned effective for the period from 01.01.2017 to 28.03.2018 and to
consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pay the petitioners the enhanced
gratuity under the Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 issued by the 1st
respondent.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
these petitioners are the erstwhile employees of the 2nd respondent, a Central
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
Public Sector Enterprise ("CPSE") and they retired from service during the
period between 01.01.2017 to 28.03.2018 and they have an average of 30
years of service in the 2nd respondent company and therefore, they are
entitled to receive gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972. Section 4(3) of Payment of Gratuity Act was amended with effect
from 29.03.2018 by enhancing maximum amount of gratuity as Rs.20 lakhs.
The 1st respondent issued an Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 by
enhancing the Gratuity amount from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs with effect
from 01.01.2017. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a Clarification
Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 stating that the Payment of Gratuity
under the DPE guidelines dated 03.08.2017 is subject to 'affordability' of the
CPSEs concerned effective for the period from 01.01.2017 till 28.03.2018 in
respect of Executives and Non-Unionised Supervisors of CPSEs on IDA pay
pattern, where pay has been revised with effect from 01.01.2017. In terms of
Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017, the petitioners are entitled to the
enhanced payment of Gratuity amount of Rs.20 lakhs as they retired from
service under the 2nd respondent company during the period from 01.01.2017
to 28.03.2018. The 2nd respondent, being a CPSE, is bound by the said
Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017. However, refused to provide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
enhanced Gratuity to the petitioners.
2.1. In the meantime, an Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 has
been issued by clarifying that the enhanced Gratuity of Rs.20 lakhs shall be
applicable subject to the affordability of the CPSE concerned. The impugned
Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 issued with retrospective effect,
thereby, affecting the vested and substantive rights of the petitioners to
receive the enhanced Gratuity of Rs.20 lakhs as per the Official Memorandum
dated 03.08.2017. Therefore, the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent
through the Madras Fertilizers Retired Employees Welfare Association for the
payment of the enhanced gratuity under the Official Memorandum dated
03.08.2017 and the same was refused vide a letter dated 08.08.2018.
Therefore, the petitioners approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour
under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the same were
dismissed. The petitioners filed Appeals before the 3rd respondent and the
same were also dismissed vide orders dated 31.03.2021 and 01.11.2021. The
petitioners challenged the Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 on the
ground that the previous Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 has created
vested and substantive rights to the petitioners to receive the enhanced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
Gratuity of Rs.20 lakhs without any condition.
2.2. The Gratuity is a retiral benefit and is a constitutional right and the
same cannot be taken away retrospectively by the Official Memorandum
dated 10.07.2018. The retiral benefit like Gratuity payable to the petitioners
cannot be subject to 'affordability' criteria or the profitability of the 2nd
respondent company. Even as per the Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity
Act, if under any Award or agreement or contract with the employer, an
employee is entitled to a higher gratuity. Therefore, as per the Official
Memorandum dated 03.08.2017, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.20 lakhs as
Gratuity amount.
2.3. The petitioners who superannuated between 01.01.2017 and
28.03.2018, i.e., before the issuance of the Official Memorandum of
10.07.2018, also had a legitimate expectation and accrued right to receive the
enhanced Gratuity amount of Rs.20 lakhs and the same stood crystallized on
the issuance of the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017. Therefore, the
impugned Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 is also violative of the
settled principles of legitimate expectation. The impugned Official
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 cannot operate retrospectively to deny the
petitioners to receive the enhanced Gratuity. The other CPSEs like NLC,
BHEL etc., have implemented the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017
and paid the enhanced Gratuity amount. Therefore, the criteria 'affordability'
is against law and same has to be set aside.
2.4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners relied upon the following judgments:-
2.4.1. Electronics Corporation of India Limited vs. The
Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Ors in Writ
Appeal No.887 of 2004 - Telangana High Court.
2.4.2. Ahmedabad (P) Primary Teachers' Association vs.
Administrative Officer reported in (2004) 1 SCC 755.
2.4.3. State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava
reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210.
2.4.4. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit vs. Manu
reported in (2023) 19 SCC 30.
2.4.5. V. Vincent Velankanni v. Union of India reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
2024 SCC Online SC 2642.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit
that the petitioners are not entitled to the enhanced Gratuity amount as a
matter of right. The Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act was
amended only on 29.03.2018. Therefore, after the amendment of Payment of
Gratuity Act, by enhancing the amount of Rs.20 lakhs, the retired persons are
entitled to the said amount. The 1st respondent issued an Official
Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 by enhancing the Gratuity amount from
Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs and thereafter, they received some clarifications
from the stakeholders, thereby, issued clarifications through an Official
Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 that the enhancement of Gratuity amount is
subject to the affordability of the CPSEs concerned. Therefore, based on the
clarifications issued by the 1st respondent, the enhancement of the Gratuity
amount is subject to the affordability of the CPSE. The said Official
Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 is issued only to clarify the applicability of
the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017. The persons, who retired during
the period between 01.01.2017 and 28.03.2018, will get enhanced Gratuity
amount subject to the affordability of the CPSEs. Therefore, the Official
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 is only clarification and the same is issued to
clarify the earlier Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017. Therefore, the
present Writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
4. No representation for the 2nd respondent and the name of the 2nd
respondent is printed in the Cause List.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit
that the petitioners filed applications for enhanced Gratuity amount. As per
the Official Memorandum issued by the 1st respondent dated 03.08.2017, the
Gratuity amount was enhanced from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs. But the 1st
respondent issued clarifications through an Official Memorandum dated
10.07.2018 that the enhanced Gratuity amount is subject to the affordability
of the CPSEs concerned. The 2nd respondent incurred loss for the preceeding
3 years. Therefore, there is no affordability to enhance the Gratuity amount
from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs. As per the clarification for the Official
Memorandum dated 03.08.2017, the enhanced Gratuity amount is subject to
the affordability. Therefore, the Authority has passed a reasoned order and
the present petitions are liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.
6. In this case, there is no dispute that these petitioners are the erstwhile
employees of the 2nd respondent company and they retired from service
during the period between 01.01.2017 and 28.03.2018. As per Section 4(3) of
the Payment of Gratuity Act, the retired employees during the period between
01.07.2017 to 28.03.2018, are entitled to Rs.10 lakhs as Gratuity. The 1st
respondent issued an Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 by enhancing
the Gratuity amount from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs. While perusing the
above said Official Memorandum, there are no any restrictions or any
condition to avail the benefits. In the meantime, the Payment of Gratuity Act
was amended and the Gratuity amount was enhanced from Rs.10 lakhs to
Rs.20 lakhs with effect from 29.03.2018. Thereafter on 10.07.2018, the 1st
respondent had issued an another Official Memorandum clarifying the
Official Memorandum issued on 03.08.2017 that the payment of Gratuity for
the period between 01.01.2017 and 28.03.2018 is subject to affordability of
the CPSEs concerned in respect of Executives and Non-Unionised
Supervisors of CPSEs on IDA pay pattern, where, pay has been revised with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
effect from 01.01.2017.
7. The petitioner's contention is that they are entitled to the benefits
under the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017. In that Official
Memorandum, there is no restriction or any condition imposed. While so,
after amending the Act and after one year from the date of previous Official
Memorandum, that too after retirement of the petitioner, a Clarification
Official Memorandum giving retrospective effect to the above said Official
Memorandum dated 03.08.2107 was issued. Once an Official Memorandum
is issued by the 1st respondent, in respect of CPSEs, by enhancing the
Gratuity amount from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs, it is the duty of the CPSEs
concerned to follow and obey the Official Memorandum. Therefore, the
petitioners are entitled to the enhanced Gratuity amount as per the Official
Memorandum dated 03.08.2017.
8. The clarification was issued only in the month of July 2018. Based
on the earlier Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017, there is a legitimate
expectation among the petitioners in getting the enhanced Gratuity amount.
As per the clarification Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
enhanced Gratuity amount is subject to the affordability of the CPSEs
concerned. The said condition cannot be imposed retrosectively and it could
be prospectively as the previous Official Memorandum did nto impose any
condition of affordability. Since on the date of issuance of the Clarification
Official Memorandum on 10.07.2018, the Payment of Gratuity Act was
amended with an enhancement of Rs.20 lakhs. The above said Official
Memorandum cannot be given retrospective effect. Even prior to the
amendment of the Payment of Gratuity Act, as per Section 4(5) of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, if under any Award or agreement or contract with
the employer, an employee is entitled to a higher gratuity than ten lakh
rupees, the employee shall be eligible to receive such higher gratuity and
therefore, the petitioners are entitled to a maximum amount as per the
agreement. As per the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017, the 1st
respondent enhanced the Gratuity amount from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs.
Therefore, as per Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioners
are entitled to enhanced gratuity. As far as the binding nature of the Official
Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 is concerned, it cannot be given retrospective
effect.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
9. At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon the judgments in Sree
Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit vs. manu reported in (2023) 19 SCC
30 and V. Vincent Velankanni vs. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 2642.
9.1. In Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit vs. manu reported
in (2023) 19 SCC 30, it has been held as follows:-
38. From the aforesaid authorities, the following principles could be
culled out.
38.1. If a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous
law, retrospective operation thereof may be permitted.
38.2. In order for a subsequent order / provision / amendment to be
considered as clarificatory of the previous law, the pre-amended law
ought to have been vague or ambiguous. It is only when it would be
impossible to reasonably interpret a provision unless an amendment
is read into it, that the amendment is considered to be a clarification
or a declaration of the previous law and therefore applied
retrospectively.
38.3. An explanation / clarification may not expand or alter the scope
of the original provision.
38.4. Merely because a provision is described as a clarification /
explanation, the Court is not bound by the said statement in the
statute itself, but must proceed to analyse the nature of the
amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory
or declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive amendment
which is intended to change the law and which would apply
prospectively.
9.2. In V. Vincent Velankanni vs. Union of India reported in 2024
SCC Online SC 2642, it has been held as follows:-
43. If a Government Order is treated to be in the nature of a
clarification of an earlier Government Order, it may be made
applicable retrospectively. Conversely, if a subsequent Government
Order is held to be a modification / amendment of the earlier
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
Government Order, its application would be prospective as
retrosepective application thereof would result in withdrawal of
vested rights which is impermissible in law and the same may also
entail recoveries to be made. The principles in this regard were
culled out by this Court in a recent judgment of Sree Sankaracharya
University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu in the following terms:___"
10. In view of the above said judgments, it is clear that merely because
a provision is described as a clarification / explanation, the Court is not bound
by the said statement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyse the
nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a
clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive
amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply
prospectively. If the Government Order is treated in the nature of
clarification of an earlier Government Order, it may be made applicable
retrospectively. Conversely, if a subsequent Government Order is held to be a
modification / amendment of the earlier Government Order, its application
would be prospective as retrosepective application thereof would result in
withdrawal of vested rights which is impermissible in law and the same may
also entail recoveries to be made. While so, it is clear that the clarification
Government Order cannot, in any way, a modification of the earlier
Government order. In the case on hand, without any condition, the earlier
order Official Memorandum was issued. Now, the clarification order
modified the entire scheme and the word "subject to affordability" was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
introduced and the same would amounts to modification and the same cannot
be permitted. When the applications were presented before the amendment of
the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Authority failed to consider that the
clarificaiton was issued after the amendment of the Act, that too, by the time,
the Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 has created a vested right and
substantial right to the petitioners to receive the enhanced gratuity of Rs.20
lakhs and the right to legitimate expectation of the petitioners accures from
the date of the earlier Official Memorandum and it cannot be clarified by way
of imposing conditions. Even as per amended Section 4(5) of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, the petitioners are entitled to get higher gratuity than the
prescribed limit of Rs.10 lakhs.
At this juncture, it is relevant to rely the judgment of High Court of
Telangana in Electronics Corporation of India Limited vs. The Appellate
Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Ors in Writ Appeal
No.887 of 2004 dated 19.08.2024, wherein the High Court of Telangana has
held as follows:-
"27. Now we may advert to the second issue, whether the
office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 is an award or agreement or
contract within the meaning of Section 4(5) of the Act.
28. It is well settled legal proposition that the Act is a
beneficial statute. When two views are possible, having regard to
purpose the Act seeks to achieve being a social welfare legislation, it
may be construed in favour of workman (see Regional Director,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
ESI Corporation vs. Ramanuja Match Industries 8 and
Beed District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra 9). It is equally well settled principle of statutory
interpretation that Court has to evolve concept of purposive
interpretation while interpreting with a social welfare legislation. The
Acts aimed at social amelioration giving benefits for the have-nots
should receive liberal construction. It is the duty of the Court to give
such a construction to a statute as would promote the purpose of
object of the Act. A construction which promotes the purpose of the
legislation should be preferred to a literal construction. A
construction which would defeat the rights of have-nots should be
avoided (see Bharat Singh vs. Management of New Delhi
Tuberculosis Centre, (1985) 1 SCC 218 (2006) 8 SCC 514 New
Delhi 10 and X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Government of NCT of Delhi 11). A three Judge Bench of
Supreme Court in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. vs.
Rabindranath Choubey 12 ) while interpreting Section 4(1)
and Section 4(6) of the Act has held that aforesaid provisions have
to be given purposive interpretation.
......
33. The Act is a piece of beneficial legislation and its provisions
have to be interpreted liberally and in a purposive manner. Therefore,
the expression "agreement" used in Section 4(5) of the Act has also
to be construed liberally in a purposive manner so as to protect the
rights of the employees to receive better terms of gratuity. Therefore,
we hold that office memorandum dated 26.11.2008 is an agreement
within the meaning of Section 4(5) of the Act. The second issue is
also answered in the affirmative".
Therefore, the Appellate Authority also failed to consider that the
Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 creates rights of vested and
legitimate expectations to the petitioners and after the amendment of the main
Act, they issued clarification. In this context, it is relevant to rely the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad (P) Primary Teachers'
Assn. vs. Administrative Officer reported in (2004) 1 SCC 755, wherein the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Gratuity is an amount paid unconnected
with any consideration and not resting upon it, and has to be considered as
something given freely, voluntarily or without recompense. It is sort of
financial assistance to tide over post-retiral hardships and inconveniences.
Therefore, in view of the above, gratuity can never be linked to the
profitability or financial performance of the 2nd respondent.
11. Since the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 was issued
much earlier, the 'affodability' has no role to play in awarding enhanced
payment of Gratuity to the petitioners by referring the subsequent Official
Memorandum, which was issued long back in the month of July 2018, that
too by way of modification, after amendment of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Therefore, the Payment of Gratuity Authorities are wrong in holding that
there is a loss caused to the 2nd respondent company during the period of
preceeding years prior to 2017-18 and the same cannot be accepted.
12. It is also not disputed that based on the Official Memorandum
dated 03.08.2017, the other CPSEs viz., NLL, BHEL have paid the enhanced
Gratuity amount to the persons, who retired from service during the period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
between 01.01.2017 and 28.03.2018. Thefore, these petitioners, who are the
employees of CPSEs cannot alter their legitimate expectation based on the
subsequent Official Memorandum and the affordability criteria is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the order passed by the
Payment of Gratuity Authorities declining to enhance the Gratuity amount
from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs is against law and the same are liable to be
quashed.
13. As far as the Clause 2(a) in clarification Official Memorandum
dated 10.07.2018 is concerned, it is against law and the same is quashed.
Since the affordability clause is quashed in the Clarification Official
Memorandum, the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced gratuity amount of
Rs.20 lakhs.
13. Accordingly, these Writ petitions are allowed. The Official
Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 issued by the 1st respondent to the extent "it
makes the payment of the enhanced gratuity under the Official Memorandum
dated 03.08.2017 subject to the 'affordability' of the CPSEs concerned
effective for the period from 01.01.2017 to 28.03.2018", is quashed and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
order dated 01.11.2021 in Gratuity Appeal Nos.5, 7-10 / 2021 and the order
dated 31.03.2021 in Gratuity Appeal Nos.74, 75, 77, 78, 80-82, 87, 88, 90 and
92 / 2020 are set aside and the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced
Gratuity amount of Rs.20 lakhs as per the Official Memorandum dated
03.08.2017. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
30.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
mjs
To
1. Ministry of Finance
Department of Public Enterprises,
represented by its Under Secretary,
Lodi Road, CGO Complex,
Block No.14, New Delhi - 110 003.
2. Madras Fertilizers Limited,
represented by its Chairman &
Managing Director,
Manali, Chennai - 600 068.
3. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan, Chennai - 600 006.
P. DHANABAL, J.,
mjs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
4. Department of Fertilizers,
Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers,
represented by its Secretary,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110 001 (INDIA)
W.P. Nos.143, 144,
146 and 558 of 2022
30.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
