The General Manager vs Appellate Authority Under The Payment ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3852 Tel

Telangana High Court

The General Manager vs Appellate Authority Under The Payment ... on 12 June, 2025

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

          HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

         WRIT PETITION Nos.1385 and 26754 OF 2023

COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is

one and the same, they are being heard together and

disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Heard Sri P.Achut Rama Shastry, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner/respondents and Sri

P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

Singareni Collieries Company Limited appearing on behalf

of the respondents/petitioner.

3. The petitioner approached the Court by filing

W.P.No.1385 of 2023 seeking prayer as under:

"....to issue Writ or Direction more Particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 to 3 in not considering the Petitioner application dated 29-7-2022 for settling the arrears and gratuity etc, and disconnection of electricity connection and water facility threatening him to vacate the quarters by Respondent Company is against to the Article 14 and 21 of the constitution, and Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent

SN,J W.P.No.1385_26754_2023

Authorities to pay arrears, benefits and gratuity to the Petitioner and pass...."

4. The petitioner approached the Court by filing

W.P.No.26754 of 2023 seeking prayer as under:

"....to issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to Order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the 2nd Respondent and the order dated 20.05.2023 passed by the 1st Respondent and quash the same holding that it is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and to pass...."

5. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.1385 of 2023 -Cheva

Mallaiah, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Coal

Filler in respondent-company on 25.05.1979 and retired on

31.05.2014 based on incorrect date of birth 03.03.1954. The

petitioner claims his actual date of birth is 10.05.1958 hence the

retirement of the petitioner should be on 31.05.2018. The

petitioner challenged the premature retirement through W.P. No.

12543 of 2015 and other writs, which were clubbed and disposed

of by a common order dated 09.06.2015. Despite the court's

direction, the respondent-company failed to act on his appeal

and denied reinstatement. The gratuity amount of

Rs.15,08,333/- was ordered in favour of the petitioner by the

SN,J W.P.No.1385_26754_2023

Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act on 05.07.2019, but

payment is withheld due to a pending appeal. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD:

A) The order of this Court dated 25.09.2023 passed in

W.P.No.26754 of 2023 is extracted hereunder:

"Notice Before Admission.

Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General takes notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and waives further notice.

Registry is therefore directed not to issue notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 in view of the waiver. Issue notice to respondent No.3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice on respondent No.3 by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due and file proof of service thereof.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the gratuity amount is not payable to respondent No.3 as he has not vacated the quarters and he has not taken "No due certificate" from the petitioner-company. He further submitted that the amount has been deposited before the Controlling Authority while filing of the appeal itself.

SN,J W.P.No.1385_26754_2023

ln view of the above, there shall be interim stay of payment of gratuity amount to respondent No.3 for a period of four (4) weeks.

List the matter on 30.10.2023."

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-

Cheva Mallaiah submits that the gratuity amount due to the

petitioner cannot be withheld on the ground that the petitioner

had not vacated the subject quarters allotted to him and requests

eight weeks time for vacating the quarters.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent-company, on the other hand, submits that for release

of gratuity amount due to the petitioner, the petitioner already

approached the appellate authority and the respondent company

had already deposited an amount of Rs.15,08,333/- and to that

effect, learned Standing Counsel has also placed DDs dated

03.04.2020 and 12.06.2020 on record.

8. Learned Standing Counsel however contends that unless

the petitioner vacates the quarters and submits no due

certificate, the gratuity amount due to the petitioner cannot be

released to the petitioner.

SN,J W.P.No.1385_26754_2023

9. This Court opines that the gratuity cannot be withheld by

the respondent company on the ground that the petitioner did

not vacate the quarters. Learned Standing Counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent-company is also not in a

position to place before this Court any provision that empowers

the respondent-company to withhold gratuity on the ground that

the petitioner did not vacate the quarters.

10. The Apex Court in its judgment dated 23.03.2018

reported in 2018 (5) Supreme Court Cases 430 in "Netram

Sahu v State of Chatisgarh and another" at Paras 17, 18,

19, 20 and 22 observed as under:

"17. In the circumstances appearing in the case, it would be the travesty of justice, if the appellant is denied his legitimate claim of gratuity despite rendering "continuous service" for a period of 25 years which even, according to the State, were regularized. The question as to from which date such services were regularized was of no significance for calculating the total length of service for claiming gratuity amount once the services were regularized by the State.

18. It was indeed the State who took 22 years to regularize the service of the appellant and went on taking work from the appellant on payment of a meager salary of Rs.2776/- per month for 22 long

SN,J W.P.No.1385_26754_2023

years uninterruptedly and only in the last three years, the State started paying a salary of Rs.11,107/- per month to the appellant. Having regularized the services of the appellant, the State had no justifiable reason to deny the benefit of gratuity to the appellant which was his statutory right under the Act. It being a 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.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we cannot agree with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court which is legally unsustainable. It is really unfortunate that the genuine claim of the appellant was being denied by the State at every stage of the proceedings up to this Court and dragged him in fruitless litigation for all these years.

20. Indeed, this reminds us of the apt observations made by the Chief Justice M.C. Chagla (as he then was) in the case of Firm Kaluram Sitaram vs. The Dominion of India (AIR 1954 Bombay 50). The learned Chief Justice in his distinctive style of writing while deciding the case between an individual citizen and the State made the following pertinent observations: "Now, we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily reply on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case

SN,J W.P.No.1385_26754_2023

of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent Judges, as an honest person."

22. The respondent-State is directed to release/pay the gratuity amount as determined by the Controlling Authority within three months to the appellant.

11. The Apex Court in the matter of "Gorakhpur University v

Dr Shitla Prasad Nagendra" reported in 2001(6) SCC page

591 has held that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of

any bounty to be distributed by the Government, but are

valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and any

delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed

seriously and dealt with severally by imposing penalty in the form

of payment of interest.

12. In State of "Jharkhand v Jitendra Kumar Srivastawa"

reported in 2013 (12) SCC page 210, the Supreme Court has

held that pension and gratuity are not bounty, but property

within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

It is quite apparent that gratuity is a property within the meaning

of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and as such it is a

constitutional right which cannot be taken away except by

Authority of law.

SN,J W.P.No.1385_26754_2023

13. The Apex Court in the matter of "Y.K.Singala v Punjab

National Bank" reported in 2013(3) SCC page 472,

revisited the scope and extent of interest on payment of

gratuity amount and condensely held as under:

"18. Sub-Section (3A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act is the most relevant provision for the determination of the present controversy. A perusal of the sub-Section (3A) leaves no room for any doubt, that in case gratuity is not released to an employee within 30 days from the date the same become payable under sub-

Section (3) of Section 7, the employee in question would be entitled to "...simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long term loans, as the Government may, by notification specify..." There is, however, one exception to the payment of interest envisaged under sub- Section (3) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act. The aforesaid exception is provided for in the proviso under sub-Section (3A) of Section 7. A perusal of the said proviso reveals, that no interest would 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..." The exception contemplated in the proviso under sub- Section (3A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act, incorporates two ingredients. Where the two

SN,J W.P.No.1385_26754_2023

ingredients contemplated in the proviso under sub- Section (3A) are fulfilled, the concerned employee can be denied interest despite delayed payment of gratuity. Having carefully examined the proviso under sub- Section (3A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act, we are of the view, that

(i) the first ingredient is, that payment of gratuity to the employee was delayed because of some fault of the employee himself.

(ii) The second ingredient is that the controlling authority should have approved such withholding of gratuity (of the concerned employee) on the basis of the alleged fault of the employee himself.

None of the other sub-sections of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act, would have the effect of negating the conclusion drawn hereinabove."

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner in W.P.No.26754 of 2023 submits that in view

of the orders dated 12.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.1385 of

2023 no further orders are necessary in W.P.No.26754 of

2023. Bringing the said submission of the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.No.26754 of

2023 on record which is not disputed by the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent in

SN,J W.P.No.1385_26754_2023

W.P.No.26754 of 2023 the said W.P.No.26754 of 2023

filed by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

Peddapalli District, Telangana, is closed.

15. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case

and,

b) The submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned

Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited

appearing on behalf of the respondents and,

c) The order of this Court dated 25.09.2023 passed in

W.P.No.26754 of 2023 (referred to and extracted above)

The writ petition No.1385 of 2023 is disposed of

directing the respondents to forthwith release the gratuity

amount due to the petitioner in accordance to law duly

taking into consideration the observations of the Apex

Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted above,

within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt

of the copy of the order, and the petitioner shall vacate

the subject quarters upon receipt of the said gratuity

SN,J W.P.No.1385_26754_2023

amount within a period of four(4) weeks thereafter duly

clearing all the arrears of rent due towards the quarters to

the Respondent Company, within a period of two (2)

weeks thereafter on receipt of the gratuity amounts due to

the petitioner as per petitioner's legal entitlement as per

Law, from the Respondent Company. However, there shall

be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

___________________________ MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

12.06.2025

Note: CC by today (B/o) LPD

SN,J W.P.No.1385_26754_2023

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRIT PETITION Nos.1385 and 26754 OF 2023

12.06.2025 LPD