Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Gratuity is an entitlement of the employee… the Municipality is not showing any charity by releasing gratuity – Calcutta HC Reiterates Right to Interest on Delayed Gratuity Payments

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has affirmed the entitlement of employees to interest on delayed gratuity payments, reinforcing that “Gratuity is an entitlement of the employee who has rendered uninterrupted and honourable service to the municipality… the Municipality as the employer is not showing any charity by releasing gratuity in favour of its retired employees.”

Facts and Legal Background:

Amiya Kumar Roy, a retired employee of the Bhatpara Municipality, did not receive his gratuity post-retirement on February 28, 2018. Following a legal battle initiated in 2020, the High Court had previously ordered the gratuity payment within eight weeks on August 5, 2021, leaving the question of interest for delayed payment open.

Despite the Municipality’s claims of financial hardships, the court noted that such constraints do not exempt an employer from fulfilling statutory obligations such as timely gratuity payments. The Municipality’s subsequent appeal challenged an additional demand for interest, which was addressed in the current proceedings.

Detailed Court Assessment and Ruling:

The bench, consisting of Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee and Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas, meticulously rejected the Municipality’s argument based on the doctrines of waiver and estoppel, aligning with previous judgments that upheld employees’ rights to interest on delayed payments under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Right to Gratuity and Interest: The court highlighted that gratuity, a statutory right under Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, ensures a dignified post-retirement life for employees. Interest compensates for delays in gratuity payments, underpinning the survival and dignity of retired workers.

Statutory Obligations over Financial Excuses: The judges noted that financial difficulties cited by the Municipality do not justify delays in gratuity payments, emphasizing that the obligations to pay gratuity and applicable interest are statutory and not conditional on the employer’s financial status.

Interest Rate Application: The court upheld the interest rate of 10% per annum, as specified by the Central Government, from the due date to the actual payment date. However, the court set aside the lower court’s directive for an additional 3% interest for further delays post-judgment, marking a critical assessment of the lawful interest limits.

Conclusion and Modification of Orders:

The Calcutta High Court directed Bhatpara Municipality to pay the due gratuity with a 10% annual interest rate within eight weeks from the judgment date. The decision to award an additional interest of 3% beyond the statutory maximum was reversed, adhering strictly to the legal provisions.

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024

Bhatpara Municipality v. Amiya Kumar Roy & Ors

Latest Legal News