Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge, Justice Ashwin D . Bhobe, Bombay High Court
Duty Of State To Voluntarily Pay Gratuity To Employees, Without Forcing Them To Approach Court: Bombay High Court
|The Court said that the delay in payment of the gratuity amount to the Petitioner caused by the authorities was unjustified and arbitrary.
The Bombay High Court has held that the State is obligated to voluntarily ensure the timely payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as it is a welfare legislation meant for the benefit of employees.
The Division Bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe observed, “…provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 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 employee rather than to force the employee to approach the Court to get his genuine claim.”
The Court added, ““Gratuity” under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is payable to an employee on termination of his employment after having rendered continuous service for not less than five years. Due date for payment of gratuity would be after one month, either upon superannuation or retirement or resignation or death or disablement due to accident or disease.”
Advocate Vaibhav Kulkarni appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate S.R. Ronghe represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
Following an advertisement published in the daily Loksatta inviting applications from eligible teachers for the post of part-time teacher for the subject Hindi, a post which was 100% aided and a sanctioned post, the Petitioner was appointed as a part-time teacher vide appointment order dated July, 20, 1998, for a term up to April 15,1999.
Subsequently, w.e.f. July 25, 2000 till the year 2018, in view of the limited tenure of the approval, the Management issued fresh appointment orders to the Petitioner as a part-time teacher on a year-to-year basis i.e., from 1999–2000 to 2018–2019. Since the year 2000, the Petitioner worked as a part-time teacher at two institutions for 18 hours per week.
By order dated June 10, 2019, the Petitioner was appointed as a full-time Assistant Teacher.
On September 27, 2023, the Petitioner called upon the Respondent No. 2 to compute and release the gratuity amount on the date of her retirement i.e., September 30, 2023. The Petitioner retired from service on September 30, 2023, upon attaining the age of superannuation.
On April 12, 2024, the Petitioner called upon the Respondent No. 2 to release her gratuity amount and process the pension papers. Respondent No. 2 neither replied nor complied with the requisition made by the Petitioner.
Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the High Court praying for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to be directed to process the papers of pension, and the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 be further directed to release the pension in a time-bound manner, and directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to award the Petitioner the amount of gratuity as per provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act along with appropriate interest.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the Petitioner having served as a part-time teacher from July 1998 to June 2019, and as a full-time Assistant Teacher from June 2019 to September 2023, with both appointments duly approved; that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 forwarded the pension proposal on 30th December 2024; and that the Petitioner’s entitlement to gratuity was also undisputed. Yet, gratuity and pension were not paid, compelling the Petitioner to approach the Court.
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (2018) wherein it had been held that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 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 employee rather than to force the employee to approach the Court to get his genuine claim.
“In view of the law on payment of gratuity, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were under a legal obligation to pay the gratuity amount to the Petitioner on 30.10.2023 i.e. within one month from the date of her retirement”, the Court observed.
The Bench noted that even if it was assumed that there was any dispute between the Management and the Respondent Authorities, in the context of payment of the gratuity amount, the Respondent Authorities should have paid the gratuity amount to the Petitioner and if any fault being found on the part of the Management, then the Respondent Authorities could have taken steps to recover the said amount from the Management. “At any rate, the Petitioner could not be denied of the gratuity amount on the date of her entitlement,” the Court observed.
The Court held that the delay in payment of the gratuity amount to the Petitioner caused by the Respondents was unjustified and arbitrary and directed the Respondent Nos 1 and 2 to pay the amount of gratuity payable to the Petitioner with an interest of 10% p.a. from the date of her superannuation till realization.
With regard to the Petitioner’s grievance concerning submission of pension papers and release of pension post-retirement, the Court directed Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take necessary steps to process the pension papers and comply with any deficiencies notified by the Authorities, and further expected the Respondents to expedite the process and ensure early release of pensionary benefits to the Petitioner.
Consequently, the Court partly allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Dr. Chetna Rajput v. Modern Education Society &Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:14501-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Vaibhav Kulkarni, Prathamesh Deshpande, Prathamesh Deshpande, Prathamesh Deshpande
Respondents: Additional Government Pleader S. P. Kamble; Advocate S. R. Ronghe