Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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