Mr. Gigi C. George, SC with Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Adv. for UOI v. MS. PROMILA SAWHNEY

Judgment

1. The only issue for consideration for us, in these writ petitions, which are directed against judgment dated 27 February 2024, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench New Delhi1, is whether Promila Sawhney2, the petitioner in WP (C) 8244/2024 and the respondent in WP (C) 1941/2025, is entitled to interest on the amount of gratuity of US $ 23,879.94.

2. The entitlement of Promila to gratuity is not really in dispute. Though Mr. Gigi C. George, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India3, sought to join issue on the very entitlement of Promila to gratuity, prayer b) in the writ petition specifically seeks a declaration that she is not entitled “to any further relief, including interest and attorney fees, beyond the sanctioned gratuity amount of USD 23,879.94”. We are clear, therefore, that the writ petition does not challenge Promila’s entitlement to gratuity, and restricts the challenge to her entitlement to interest and attorney fees, as granted by the Tribunal.

3. We, therefore, would be examining Mr. George’s contention that Promila was not entitled to gratuity only as a ground on which to decide whether she would be entitled to interest and attorney fees on 1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter 2 “Promila”, hereinafter 3 “UOI” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 W.P.(C) 1941/2025 & W.P.(C) 8244/2024 the gratuity which now stands conceded. Facts, leading up to the impugned judgment

4. As the UOI, through the Ministry of Tourism, was unwilling to release gratuity to Promila with interest, Promila approached the Tribunal by way of OA 1940/20214, seeking that the gratuity due to her be released with interest. By the impugned judgment dated 27 February 2024, the Tribunal has allowed Promila’s claim to the extent of grant of simple interest on the Dollar amount of the gratuity, for the period 1 November 2000 to 1 August 2019, at the rate of5 1.5% per annum.

The UOI has challenged the decision of the Tribunal to the extent it has awarded any interest to Promila. The contention of the UOI is that Promila is not entitled to interest whatsoever. Promila has challenged the impugned judgment of the Tribunal to the extent of the rate of interest granted to her as well as the date up to which interest has been granted by the Tribunal. She prays that the interest be granted @ 12% per annum with effect from 31 October 2000 till the date of actual payment.

6. The issue in controversy being, thus, limited, we, with the consent of the parties, have heard them on the merits of the dispute, without requiring exchange of pleadings for the present, to ascertain whether any case for issuance of notice is made out. 4 Promila Sawhney v UOI and Ors. 5 “@” hereinafter W.P.(C) 1941/2025 & W.P.(C) 8244/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

7. As already noted, the facts are not in dispute. Vide appointment order dated 27 March 1978, the services of Promila, who was earlier appointed as Secretary in the leave vacancy of the earlier incumbent Premlatha Nagraj, were regularised with effect from the date of the appointment order i.e., 27 March 1978. She completed her probation satisfactorily on 27 September 1978, after which she was granted five advance increments by order dated 6 April 1979.

8. Promila continued to serve the UOI in the Government of India Tourist Office, Los Angeles, California, USA6, till 11 October 2000, on which date, she tendered a letter of resignation to the Assistant Director/Director in the Tourist Office. By the said letter, she sought to be relieved of her duties with effect from 31 October 2000 and settlement of all her dues. The request was accepted by the UOI, as a result of which the services of Promila stood discontinued with effect from 31 October 2000, as sought by her.

9. Consequent on the severance of her employment with the Tourist Office by resignation, the Tourist Office released, to Promila, only an amount of leave salary of US $ 3338.01.

10. Promila, therefore, intimated the Tourist Office that she was entitled to be paid gratuity as part of her terminal dues. The Director in the Tourist Office, by letter dated 30 November 2000, sought the opinion of the Director of Audit, Indian Embassy, Washington DC, on Promila’s claim. In the said letter, the amount of gratuity which would 6 “Tourist Office”, hereinafter W.P.(C) 1941/2025 & W.P.(C) 8244/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 be payable to Promila, in the event of her being entitled thereto, was worked out to US $ 20663.00.

11. As the UOI had not released any gratuity to her, consequent on the severance of her employment, Promila addressed a representation to the Assistant Director in the Tourist Office on 1 August 2001. By the said letter, she pointed out that she had served in the Tourist Office for 22 years and 7 months and claimed that she was entitled to gratuity of US $ 23,000.

12. On 7 November 2001, Promila addressed another representation to the Tourist Office, reiterating her claim to gratuity. On receiving the said communication, the Director in the Tourist Office wrote to the Under Secretary, Ministry of Transport on the same day, i.e., 7 November 2001, thus: “Tel: (213) 380-8855 Fax: (213) 380-6111 Email: [email protected] http://www.tourismofindia.com. INDIA TOURISM 3550 Wilshire Bivd., Suite # 204 CA 90010-2485 Ref. No. Admn1(12)/04 Date: November 07, 2001 The Under Secretary, Government of India Transport Bhawan 1, Parliament Street New Delhi-110001 Re: Payment of gratuity Respected Sir, This is regarding an appeal dated November 7, 2001 received from Ms. Promila Sawhney, working as a Secretary in the Govt. of India Tourist Office, Los Angeles, since August 1, 2001. W.P.(C) 1941/2025 & W.P.(C) 8244/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 Ms. Sawhney had worked in our office as a Secretary w.e.f March 1978 to October, 2000. Due to some family situation and undue circumstances for going through a divorce, and left with a young child. As she did not have any guidance, she had to leave the job. As per the regulations of the Ministry of Tourism, once a staff has worked over a period of 7 or 10 years, they could be extended gratuity. In previous cases, when other local staff of our office had left the jobs, namely: Mr. Thankachan Varghese, Publicity Assistant in April, 1992; Mr. Ram Kumar Bali, Accountant in November 1989 and Mrs. Anjali Shah, Receptionist in 1990. They were extended gratuity for the tenure of the period they worked. I am herewith enclosing a copy of the letter dated August 1, 2001 received from Ms. Promila Sawhney, for your kind reference and humble request to look into the matter and help us to resolve the issue. As Los Angeles is a very expensive city to live in alone by a single parent with a child, it is very difficult to meet the financial difficulties and going through very hard times and no one to help me financially. Thanking you and with kind regards, Yours faithfully Sd/- (DAMA SUBHASH) Director”

13. Thus, the Director, by the above communication dated 7 November 2001, impliedly recommended Promila’s claim for gratuity.

14. The Director in the Tourist Office again wrote to the Head of Chancery, Consulate General of India7, San Francisco on 26 June 2002, pointing out that Promila’s claim to gratuity had to be settled. The amount of gratuity payable to her was worked out, in the said 7 “CGI”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 W.P.(C) 1941/2025 & W.P.(C) 8244/2024 letter, as US $ 21,132.69.

15. On 30 June 2002, Promila again wrote to the Director in the Tourist office reiterating her claim to gratuity and pointing out that the amount of gratuity payable to her, worked out, not to US $ 21,132.69 but to US $ 23,879.94. This request was reiterated by Promila in her representations dated 10 June 2016, 5 July 2016, 27 December 2016, 21 April 2017, 6 June 2017 and 24 July 2017. As her requests for release of gratuity were not resulting in any fruitful outcome, the Promila addressed a legal notice through counsel to the Assistant Director in the Tourism office on 26 October 2018, whereby she claimed gratuity along with interest and Attorney’s fees.

16. It was only at this juncture that, by email dated 2 November 2018, addressed to the Promila’s counsel, the Assistant Director informed that Promila’s claim for gratuity to the tune of US $ 23,879.94 had been approved and that the amount would be settled by the Tourist office on immediate basis. The said email reads thus: “From: India Tourism New York<ny@itonyccom> Sent: Friday, November 2, 2018 3:43 PM To: CC: [email protected] [email protected] Subject: Settlement of Gratuity in f/o. Mrs. Promila Sawhney (former Secretary/ Local Staff – India Tourism, Los Angeles Attachments : Letter from IT, New York dated Nov 2, 2018 PDF To, Ms. Indra M Gandhi Counsel Warner Center W.P.(C) 1941/2025 & W.P.(C) 8244/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 21550 Oxnard Street, Suit # 660 Woodland Hills, Californnia 91367 Dear Madam, This has with reference to your letter dated 26th October 2018 relating to the grant of terminal benefit {gratuity} in f/o Ms. Promila Sawhney (former Secretary - local staff) at India Tourism Los Angeles for the period 28th March, 1978 to 31st October, 2000, In this regard, | would like to inform you about the approval of the competent authority for the settlement of terminal benefit (gratuity) amounting to US $23,879.94 in f/o Mrs. Promila Sawhney. The above amount will now be settled by India Tourism, New York through Consulate General of India, San Francisco on immediate basis. Sincerely, Sunil Kumar Lal Gond Assistant Director India Tourism, New York Suite # 303 1270, Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Tel: 212-586-4901 Toll Free: 1-800-953-9399”

17. However, having thus communicated to Promila’s counsel that her claim for payment of gratuity had been sanctioned and cleared, the Acting Regional Director in the Tourist office executed a volte face and, by the following letter dated 6 December 2018, withdrew the offer to release US $ 23789.94 to Promila towards her terminal gratuity benefits: “The Law Firm of Ravi Batra P.C. The Batra Building [email protected] W.P.(C) 1941/2025 & W.P.(C) 8244/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 142, Lexington Ave. December 6, 2018 Fax : 212-545-0967 New York, N.Y 10016 212-545-1993 Via Email: [email protected] Indra M. Gandhi, Esq. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 660 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Re: Your missive dated 11/30/18 regarding Promila Sawhney’s statute of limitations-barred claim from September 5, 2000, albeit, maturing on October 31, 2000 - 18 years ago. Ms. Gandhi, _ ‘The undersigned represents India Tourism Board. Your client’s matter, and our demand have been turned over to us for response. Based purely upon humanitarian grounds, our client was willing to consider inter alia, waiving the statute of limitations-barred claim and possibly “settle” this matter in the best of faith - something you rejected, with gusto and demanded a frivolously enhanced amount. As I am sure you have informed your client, what California’s statute of limitations is, and its effect. Given your untenable position, based upon a barred claim no less, one is left wondering if your client’s best interests were served to- date by you - as this letter is now confirming that there is no settlement being offered. Since, we have had to be retained to deal with this stale claim, humanitarian status quo ante is not possible. We consider the matter closed. If you proceed to court, which is your right, we will assert all of our rights, including, without limitation “frivolity” and S/L bar, and seek the cost and fees of getting it dismissed. If you wish to rehabilitate your advocacy, make us an Offer, which includes a General Release of our client, an unqualified “Thank you,” and a settlement amount that is a fraction of your barred-claim, I will review it if received by 12/12/18. Nothing contained herein is an offer to you, and all rights are expressly reserved. , Happy Holidays! Sincerely Via email: [email protected] Sunil Kumar Ravi Batra Acting Regional Director Incredible India/India Tourism” W.P.(C) 1941/2025 & W.P.(C) 8244/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

18. In these circumstances, Promila approached the Tribunal by way of OA 1940/2021, with the prayer that the UOI be directed to release, to her, gratuity of US $ 23,879.94 along with interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from 31 October 2000 till the date of actual payment along with costs and legal fees.

19. As is apparent from the prayers in WP(C) 1941/2025, to which we would presently allude, the UOI does not dispute Promila’s entitlement to gratuity of US $ 23,879.94, which was duly sanctioned to her. The dispute is solely with respect to interest.

20. Before the Tribunal, apropos the claim for interest, Promila relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Syed Maqdoom Mohiuddin v Saudagar Anwar8, Vijay L Mehrotra v State of UP9 and S.K. Dua v State of Haryana10. She submitted that as the UOI had not released, to her, the gratuity to which she was legally entitled, and it was only after 13 years of communications, on being issued a legal notice, that UOI agreed to release her terminal gratuity, she was duly entitled to interest thereon. She submitted that, therefore, she was unwilling to accept gratuity without interest. She also pointed out that she was a single mother and a cancer patient and was in need of her terminal benefits for, among other things, her treatment.

21. Disputing Promila’s claim, the UOI advanced, before the Tribunal, preliminary objections with respect to jurisdiction and limitation.