Modification Application Seeking Interest On Gratuity Can't Be Filed After Disposal Of Writ Petition On Merits: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that Modification Application seeking interest on gratuity can't be filed after disposal of Writ Petition on merits.

The Court was considering a modification application seeking to modify an order to the extent that the interest amount on delayed payment of gratuity of amount ₹26,897/- be paid to the Applicant-Petitioner.

The single bench of Justice Prakash Singh observed, "It is apt to say that this Court after passing the order has become functus officio and does not retain the jurisdiction to entertain an application for substantially decided issues. In fact this is modification application and not an application for correction or any clerical or arithmetic error or application for extension of time, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the modification application would substantially and majorly change the nature of the order dated 24.05.2024."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate Vinay Kumar Singh while the Respondent was represented by C.S.C. Mayank Sinha.

Facts of the Case

The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner was working as an Office Assistant-II and was superannuated in 2004. After his retirement, the gratuity amounting ₹2,32,829/- was paid to him and an amount of ₹26,897/- was allegedly withheld without giving any cogent reason. Even after several request regarding the payment of the gratuity, no action was taken and being aggrieved the Writ Petition was instituted. The Writ Court directed the Respondent to consider and decide the matter a fresh and the gratuity amount ₹26,897/- was paid to the Applicant-Petitioner. The Modification Application was filed while raising the grievance that the order challenged by the opposite party rather the same was complied with, but the interest part has not been paid yet.

Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant-Petitioner was under impression that the prayer was sought for payment of interest on the gratuity amount and there is settled proposition of law for payment of interest on the delayed payment of amount of gratuity and therefore, the Applicant-Petitioner expected that the interest would be paid to him, but in fact the department did not pay the same. He further submitted that it would not be open for the Applicant-Petitioner to go into other round of Writ Petition seeking the payment of interest on the gratuity amount as the plea and prayer has alreadybeen taken. Reference was made to Supreme Court's ruling in H. Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd.

He further submitted that since the law is settled on the issue that the delayed payment of the gratuity mandatorily requires the payment of interest on the same and further the Applicant-Petitioner in the Writ Petition has very specifically sought directions for payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity, which was inadvertently left to be directed in the order.

Reasoning By Court

Answering the question as to whether the modification application is maintainable in a matter where the final order is passed, the Court stated that common sense says that if the pleading and prayer are there, then, denying the opportunity of modification in the final order would be unjustifiable as the same would give multiplicity of the litigation, but law which settled over period of time is that, such modification application is not maintainable.

Reference was made to State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and Another wherein the Apex Court held that for reviving the proceedings in a finally decided writ petition, no Miscellaneous Application would be maintainable.

Reference was further made to Supertech Limited Vs. Emeraled Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others wherein it was held that by way of Miscellaneous Applications seeking a substantive modification of the judgment, is not permissible as the same is amount to abuse of the process and that would also create unended multiplicity in the proceedings.

The Modification Application was thus dismissed on the grounds of maintainability.

Cause Title: Ram Pal Singh vs. State Of U.P. (2025:AHC-LKO:26054)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Vinay Kumar Singh

Respondent- C.S.C. Mayank Sinha, Advocate Neerav Chitravanshi, Advocate Ran Vijay Singh 

Click here to read/ download Order