MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

Latest Legal News