Chhotelal Rathore v. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited

Anup Kumar Bagchi S/o Shri Amlendu Bagchi Aged About 63 Years R/o Maitry Sangh Gali, Kumharpara, Dr. Shymaprasad Mukherjee Ward No. 39, Tahsil And District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh Versus ---- Petitioner

#1. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited Ekatma Path Office Campus, Block 07 Sector 24, In Front Of Punjab National Bank, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

#2. Manager (Administration), Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited, Lokash Plaza, Shankar Nagar Road, Shankar Nagar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

#3. Divisional Manager, Chhattisarh Rajaya Van Vikas Nigam Baranwapara Project Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

#4. Secretary (Forest), Govt Of Chhattisgarh, Forest Department, Dau Kalyansingh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents WPS No. 7044 of 2018 Bhawesh Kumar Sinha S/o Late P. R. Sinha Aged About 66 Years R/o House No. 3-A, Road No. 34, Sector 8, Bhilai Nagar District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---- Petitioner

#1. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited Ekatma Path Office Compus, Block 07 Sector 24, In Front Of Punjab National Bank, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

#2. Manager (Administration) Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited, Lokash Plaza, Shankar Nagar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

#3. Divisional Manager Chhattisgarh Rajaya Van Vikas Nigam, Baranwapara Project Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

#4. Secretary (Forest) Govt of Chhattisgarh, Forest Department, Dau Kalyansingh Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For the Petitioners For the Respondents : : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate Mr. Kashif Shakkeel Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board

07.09.2022

#1. Since common facts and law are involved in the bunch of these writ petitions therefore they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

#2. In the bunch of the writ petitions, the petitioners are the retired employees working under respondent No. 1 to 3, who retired after completing the service of more than 39 years.

#3. Leading case is WPS No. 6643 of 2018 and the facts of the case are being considered for deciding the bunch of writ petitions.

#4. The petitioners who have worked with the respondent No. 1 to 3 from

1.11.1977 to 30.11.2016 retired from the post of Project Ranger, Division from Chhattisgarh Rajay Van Vikas Nigam. The respondents without rhym and reason have withheld the gratuity and leave encashment, therefore, he has filed the present writ petiton and has prayed for payment of compound interest for 14 months delay in releasing the gratuity amount of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 4,64,000/- towards leave encashment.

#5. The respondents have filed their return in which they have mentioned that the gratuity has not been paid on the count that various details regarding the fact that during his entire service carrier whether any departmental inquiry of recovery is pending against the petitioners were not available which caused delay. It has also been contended that the gratuity amount is being paid by the life Insurance Corporation as per the understanding arrived at between the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and the life Insurance which has also caused delay in payment of releasing the gratuity. During pendency of the petition, the respondents have released the gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner on 05.02.2018 i.e. after lapse of 14 months of superannuation on 30.11.2016 and would submit that there is justifiable reason for not releasing the gratuity therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get any interest on alleged delay in payment of gratuity and leave encashment and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

#6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

#7. The respondents have framed Madhya Pradesh/ Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited Service Rules, 1984. Rule 157 deals with the welfare scheme and Rule 158 deals with gratuity which reads as under;- Gratuity:- Every employee of the Nigam irrespective of the amount of his salary, shall be entitled to the payment of gratuity in the manner and at the rates prescribed under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Employee who are in technical, managerial, administrative or executive service of the Nigam, shall also be entitled to the benefits of gratuity scheme, even if they do not fall within the purview of payment of Gratuity Act 1972. The Gratuity Scheme shall be administered by the Nigam by creation of an irrevocable trust and entering into an agreement for a Group Gratuity Life Assurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India.

#8. From perusal of the Rules, it is quite vivid that payment of gratuity Act is applicable on the respondents establishment and it is also not in dispute that the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 have not released gratuity to the petitioners within 30 days from the date it becomes payable to the petitioner i.e. from the date of retirement and no permission from the Controlling Authority has been obtained for delayed payment of gratuity, Considering the facts of the case and Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, it is quite clear that if the gratuity is not paid under the Act by the employeer within 30 days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable, the employer shall pay from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid simple interest at such rate not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long term deposit as that Government may by notification specify.

#9. In pursuance of the provisions contained in Section 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Central Government has issued notification on 01/10/1987, prescribing the 10% of interest on delayed payment of gratuity. The issue for grant of interest on delayed payment of gratuity has also come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Gangahanume Gowda vs Karnataka Agro Industries