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
2
SN,J
W.P.No.1385_26754_2023Authorities 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
3
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.
4
SN,J
W.P.No.1385_26754_2023ln 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.
5
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
6
SN,J
W.P.No.1385_26754_2023years 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
7
SN,J
W.P.No.1385_26754_2023of 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.
8
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
9
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
10
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
11
SN,J
W.P.No.1385_26754_2023amount 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
12
SN,J
W.P.No.1385_26754_2023
104
HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION Nos.1385 and 26754 OF 2023
12.06.2025
LPD