Orissa High Court
Basanti Kar & Others vs Managing Director on 25 February, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.18003 of 2009
(In the matter of application under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India).
Basanti Kar & others Petitioners
-versus-
Managing Director, Orissa Forest Opposite Parties
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar & another
For Petitioner : Mr. S.P.Das, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. N.K.Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING :22.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:25.02.2025
G. Satapathy, J.
1. The petitioners by means of this writ petition
have invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with
certain prayers, but subsequently moulded their prayer
by way of a memo confining it to the second prayer for
limiting only to the grant of interest on the gratuity
amount w.e.f. the date of retirement till its disbursement.
By the aforesaid memo, it has been clarified
that the first prayer of the petitioners have already been
considered and the gratuity which was earlier held up had
already been disbursed to them during the pendency of
the writ petition.
2. In the course of argument, Mr.Sidhartha
Prasad Das, learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that since the gratuity has already been paid
at belated stage, thereby the petitioners are entitled to
interest on the gratuity amount so paid in view of the
proviso to Sec. 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972. On the contrary, Mr.N.K.Mohanty, learned
counsel for the OP, however, has submitted that since
the deceased employee had some outstanding dues of
Rs.25,54,329/- which was pointed out in audit, the
payment of gratuity to the deceased employee was
deferred/delayed, but ultimately, the same was settled
and sanctioned vide Office order No. 502 dated
30.03.2019 and disbursed on 15.04.2019 in terms of
Annexures-„F‟ and „G‟, but the deceased employee still
after adjustment has to deposit an amount of
Rs.77,977/-, however, the same has not been paid and,
therefore, no interest can be levied on the Department
on the pretext of delayed sanction of the gratuity which
was only due to fault of the deceased employee and,
therefore, the prayer as made by the legal
representatives of the deceased employee merits no
consideration. Accordingly, Mr. Mohanty has prayed to
dismiss the writ petition.
3. After having considered the rival
submissions upon perusal of record, it is not in dispute
that the gratuity amount has already been disbursed to
the petitioners, but the fact revealed from the prayer of
the petitioners that the retiral benefit of the deceased
employee was withheld due to proceeding in DP Nos.
1729 and 1730 of 2000 and the petitioners, therefore,
have prayed to sanction the leave salary after adjusting
the amount of recovery as ordered in these
proceedings. Further, Annexure-1 to the writ petition
also discloses about some audit objection amounting to
Rs.25,00,000/- and some odd, but later on, after
reconciliation and settlement of the audit objection, the
gratuity amount was sanctioned and immediately
disbursed.
4. For clarity and to address the dispute in the
matter, this Court considers it to clarify as to what the
word "gratuity" means. Gratuity as it denotes is an
amount paid by an employer, when the employee
leaves the job after serving the organization of
employer for a minimum period of five years. One can,
however, consider it to be a financial gift from the
employer to employee. In the context of claim of the
petitioners, it is appropriate to refer to the proviso to
Sec.7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which
provides that no such interest shall be payable, if the
delay in the payment is due to the fault of the
employee and the employer has obtained permission in
writing from the Controlling Authority for the delayed
payment on this ground. In the present case, not only
Annexure-1, but also the admitted prayer reveals about
some outstanding dues against the deceased employee
which is quite evident from the prayer in which the
petitioners have sought for direction for payment of
leave salary after adjustment of recovery amount.
Further, a careful reading of the averments of the writ
petition and counter affidavit together with the
supported documents, it appears to the Court that
there was some outstanding dues against the deceased
employee and the gratuity to the deceased employee
was withheld due to audit objection, but subsequently
after settlement of audit objection, the gratuity amount
was disbursed. However, the Department still claim for
outstanding dues against the deceased employee for an
amount of Rs.77,977/-, but the same being disputed
question of fact cannot be decided in a writ petition.
5. Be that as it may, since the payment of
gratuity was admittedly held up due to audit objection,
but subsequently the same was disbursed on
reconcilement of the audit objection which is clearly
evident from Annexure-1 and, therefore, no interest
can be leviable on the Department on the pretext of
delayed sanction of gratuity. In view of the aforesaid
facts and taking into consideration the relevant
documents together with discussions made herein
above, this Court considers the prayer of the petitioners
for grant of interest on the gratuity to be unsustainable
and liable to be rejected.
6. In the result, the writ petition being devoid
of merit stands dismissed on contest, but in the
circumstance, there is no order as to costs.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Signature NotDated
Verified
the 25TH Day of February,2025/Kishore
Digitally Signed
Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:43:56
