Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case Patta Without SDM’s Prior Approval Is Void Ab Initio And Cannot Be Cancelled – It Never Legally Existed: Allahabad High Court Natural Guardian Means Legal Guardian: Custody Cannot Be Denied to Father Without Strong Reason: Orissa High Court Slams Family Court for Technical Rejection Affidavit Is Not a Caste Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Zila Panchayat Member's Election for Failing Eligibility Under OBC Quota Confession Recorded By DCP Is Legally Valid Under KCOCA – Bengaluru DCP Holds Rank Equivalent To SP: Karnataka High Court Difference of Opinion Cannot End in Death: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Maoist Ambush Killing SP Pakur and Five Policemen Mere Presence Of Beneficiary During Execution Does Not Cast Suspicion On Will: Delhi High Court Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence Cheating and Forgery Taint Even Legal Funds: No Safe Haven in Law for Laundered Money: Bombay High Court Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi High Court

PAYMENT OF GRATUITY: MAXIMUM LIMIT NOT APPLICABLE TO RETIRED STATE ENGINEER: Entitlement to Claim Interest for Delayed Disbursement – KERALA HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court, presided over by the Honorable Mr. Justice Murali Purushothaman, addressed the issue of gratuity payment to a retired Regional State Engineer from the Kerala State Housing Board. The court ruled that the maximum gratuity limit under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, does not apply to the petitioner, K. Rajendra Prasad, as he is governed by the Kerala Service Rules. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act hold precedence over other enactments.

The court stated, "The employees of the Board can claim gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and not under the Kerala Service Rules. They cannot have gratuity under the KSR with the ceiling limit payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and vice versa."

The petitioner had sought the maximum gratuity of Rs. 10,00,000/- under section 4(3) of the Act, as amended in 2010. However, the court clarified that the maximum gratuity amount is determined based on the date on which the gratuity becomes payable and not the date of sanction or disbursement. Therefore, the petitioner's claim for the maximum amount was dismissed.

Regarding the delayed disbursement of the petitioner's Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), the court left open the entitlement to claim interest. The petitioner was advised to approach the Kerala State Housing Board for interest, and the board was directed to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within two months.

This judgment serves as a significant clarification on the applicability of gratuity provisions for employees under the Kerala State Housing Board. The court's ruling ensures the precedence of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in determining gratuity entitlement, bringing clarity to similar cases in the future.

"The employees of the Board can claim gratuity in terms of section 4(3) [of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972]...they cannot claim gratuity available under the KSR."

The petitioner's counsel expressed satisfaction with the court's decision, stating, "While we respect the court's ruling, we will pursue the petitioner's entitlement to claim interest for the delayed disbursement of DCRG as directed."

Date of Decision: May 22, 2023

 RAJENDRA PRASAD REGIONAL vs STATE OF KERALA

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/K.-Rajendra-Prasad-V-State-Of-Kerala-22-May-Kerala-HC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News