Orissa High Court
Driems Autonomous College vs Controlling Authority Under .... ... on 11 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9118 of 2022
DRIEMS Autonomous College, .... Petitioner
Cuttack
Mr. J. K. Khuntia, Advocate
-versus-
Controlling Authority under .... Opposite Parties
Payment of Gratuity Act-cum-
DLC & others
Mr. Lalit Mohan Nanda, Advocate
(For O.P. No.2)
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
11.04.2025
Order No.
20. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. This writ petition has been preferred challenging the
judgment dated 19.01.2022 passed by the Opposite Party
No.1 in PG Case No.21 of 2021, who is the Controlling
Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, shortly
hereinafter, 'the P.G. Act'. Though, there is a provision of
Appeal under Section 7(7) of the P.G. Act, instead of
availing the alternative remedy under the PG Act, the writ
petition has been filed on the ground that principle of
natural justice has been violated by the Controlling
Authority and no opportunity was given to it to contest the
case on merit.
4. However, as it seems from the impugned judgement
so also the averments made in the writ petition and
documents appended thereto, the Petitioner-Management
was duly noticed by the authority concerned before passing
the final judgment, which is under challenge. Further, the
Petitioner-Management could have preferred an appeal on
the same ground, what has been urged in the present writ
petition.
5. As it seems, to avoid the statutory deposit, which is
to be made in terms of proviso under Section 7(7) of the
P.G. Act at the time of preferring an appeal, the writ
petition has been preferred by the Petitioner- Management.
Since the employer-employee relationship so also the
tenure of service of the Opposite Party No.2 has not been
disputed by the Petitioner Management, in order to bring
due to an end the litigation between the parties, this Court
direct both the parties to file their respective affidavits with
regard to wages last drawn by the Opposite Party No.2.
6. The Opposite Party No.2 filed an affidavit dated
01.07.2024 indicating therein that he was drawing the
salary of Rs.47,400/-, while he was laid off by the
Petitioner-Management. Though the Petitioner-
Management filed an Additional Affidavit dated 30.06.2024
indicating therein that the Opposite Party No.2 was
drawing monthly salary of Rs.37,400/- and academic grade
pay of Rs.10,000/- and the last salary of Opposite Party
No.2 for the month of February, 2021 was paid to him by
transmitting the same to his Saving Bank Account
maintained at Union Bank of India, Tangi, Cuttack, on
being further directed, an Affidavit dated 22.08.2024 has
been filed in the Petitioner-Management. Paragraph-1 of
the said affidavit, being relevant, is extracted below;-
"1. That, in pursuance of the order dated
06.08.2024 the deponent filed the detail
calculation sheet relating to the last salary
drawn by the Opp. Party No.2.
1.Basic Pay Rs.37,400/-.
2.Academic Grade Pay Rs.10,000/-
3.DA Nill
This figure also admitted by the Opp. Party
No.2 in his affidavit filed on 01.07.2024."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. To demonstrate before this Court that Academic
Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/- should also been added in the
basic pay for the purpose of calculating the gratuity,
learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 filed
Notification dated 22nd October, 2019 of the Government of
Odisha, Higher Education Department, wherein the
"existing basic pay" has been defined as follows;-
"3(i). "existing basic pay" means pay
drawn in the prescribed existing Pay Band and
Academic Grade Pay including stagnation
increment, personal pay granted to protect the
total emoluments on account of loss of pay,
advance increments granted, if any, but does
not include any other type of pay like "special
pay";
(Emphasis supplied)
8. It is well evident from both the Affidavits filed by the
Petitioner-Management that there is no such specific
averment that Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/- should not be
taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of
gratuity. Rather, in the Affidavit dated 22.08.2024, it has
been stated that the said figure has also been admitted
by the Opp. Party No.2 in his affidavit filed on
01.07.2024. Further, in view of definition of wages, as
defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, 1972, this court
is of the view that "Academic Grade Pay" has to be
included in the wages for the purpose of calculation of
gratuity.
9. In view of the above, so also the reasons indicated in
the impugned judgment passed by the Controlling
Authority under the P.G. Act, this Court is of the view that
there is no illegality or infirmity in judgment dated
19.01.2022 passed in PG Case No.21 of 2021. That apart,
the Petitioner also did not prefer any appeal against the
said judgement, in terms of Section 7(7) of the P.G. Act, by
depositing the statutory amount.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
11. In view of dismissal of the writ petition on merit, it
will be open for the Opposite Party No.2 to take appropriate
action in terms of provisions under the PG Act to realise
the said amount from the Petitioner- Management.
(S.K. Mishra)
Mona
Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa
