IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process

Service Law | Gratuity Payments Should Be Made Within 30 Days of Retirement: Gujarat High Court Denies Additional Interest on Delayed Gratuity Payment

30 September 2024 1:39 PM

By: sayum


Gujarat High Court, in Bipin Mafatlal Patel vs Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, dismissed a petition seeking additional interest on delayed gratuity payments. The petitioner, a retired professor, claimed entitlement to 10% interest from May 2018 for unpaid gratuity. However, the court upheld the previous decisions, affirming that the professor was not entitled to interest beyond the amount already awarded.

Bipin Mafatlal Patel, a professor and Head of Anesthesia at Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, retired on April 30, 2018, after 34 years of service. Upon retirement, he was entitled to ₹20,00,000 as gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, but received only ₹10,00,000. Patel made several requests for the remaining ₹10,00,000 with 10% interest, which was not immediately paid by the Institute due to pending grants from the Gujarat government.

The petitioner applied to the Controlling Authority, which partially allowed his claim by awarding him ₹10,00,000 in arrears along with 10% simple interest, starting from September 1, 2021. Dissatisfied with the delay in receiving full payment and the calculation of interest, Patel filed an appeal seeking interest from May 2018, which was rejected by both the Controlling and Appellate Authorities.

The core legal issue centered on whether Patel was entitled to interest on the delayed payment of gratuity from May 1, 2018, the day after his retirement, or from September 1, 2021, as decided by the authorities. Patel argued that under Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, employers are bound to pay gratuity within 30 days of retirement and are liable to pay interest for any delay.

Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak upheld the Appellate Authority's decision, stating that Patel’s entitlement to gratuity was properly calculated. The court highlighted that the professor's retirement was governed by a Government Resolution (G.R.) dated June 28, 1994, which extended the professor's service until the end of the academic year, affecting the retirement date used for calculating gratuity.

The court observed that although Patel retired on April 30, 2018, the enhanced gratuity limit of ₹20,00,000 became effective on March 29, 2018. As such, Patel was entitled to the higher gratuity but not to the interest he claimed from May 2018. The authorities had already paid the ₹10,00,000 balance along with 10% interest from September 2021, after the gratuity limit was revised, and there was no error in their decisions.

The Gujarat High Court affirmed that the petitioner was not entitled to 10% interest from May 2018, as claimed. Instead, the interest payable from September 2021 was in line with the legal provisions. The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Appellate Authority’s decision was sound and without any legal irregularities.

Date of Decision: September 10, 2024

Bipin Mafatlal Patel vs Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute

Similar News