The High Court · 2025

Petition u,rder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumsttrnces stated in the affidavit filed in ,"upport of the petition, the High court may bt:, rleased grants stay of all furtnerr proceedings pursuant to the order passi:tl by the 2nd Respondent datr:cl 1ii.07.2019 in File No. 4817t2017-ALCltVC perrding disposal of the Writ Petition Gounsel for the Petitioner: sRr p sRr HARSHA REDDY, sc FoR STNGARENT counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: sRI JANARDHAN GouD suNKAR|, CENTRAL GOVT. Sr. COUNSEL Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: - The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER COLLIERIES CO LTD 1 HON,BLE MRS. ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA .I.TIo N Nos. 13 85 nd 267540F2o2 3 a wBLr--Pl-l coMMoN oRDJBi Since the it;sue involved in both the writ petitrons is one and the same, they are being heard togethr:r and disposed of by rnray of this common order'

2.HearrJsriP.AchutRamashastry,learned<:ounse| appearing on tlehalf of the petitioner/respondents arrd Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, Iearned Standing Couns;el for Singareni6q||ieriescompanyLimitedappearingorrlrehalf of the resPondents/Petitioner'

3. The W.P.No.1 385_ r AD roach ed t court bV- filino 2 e tn a r s er: ''.. t.r issue Writ or Direction more Particu a"ly one ltr rlat; -e of Writ of Mandamus declarini; th3 e( tion of th3 Reslondent No'1 to 3 in not con:;idel'ing the Petitirner i'pplication daled 29-7-2022 for settlinq the arrears ar- d gratuity etc, and disconnection :f e ectl i<'ity Conn3Ctiolandwaterfacilitythreateninghinrt].'/.lcate the clurlrt:r.s by Respondent Company is aqain;t to the Artic e 14 and 21 of the constitution' and Principl :s; of Naturall.r!;ticeandconsequentlydirecttheRe:;porCent 2 W.P.No.138S SN,J _26754_2023 Authorities to pay a rreai-s, benefits and gratuity to the Petiiioner and pass 4 e P No. 75 t r 2 e r r ",, i, ,..... to issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiora ri callin ,o. the records pertaining to Order dated 05.07.2r,n by the 2'd Respondent and the order ou," 'uttuo Responden r . r."t* ji;' ir:"' :, :' ::::,, ;r,,, :: arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and to pass....,, 5. The case oF the petitioner in W.p.No.1385 of 2023 _Cheva Mallaiah, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Coal Filler in respondent_company on 2s.05.7979 and retired on 3I.05.2014 based on incorrect date of birth 03.03.1954. The petitioner claims his actual date of birth is 10.05.195g hence the retirement of the petitioner should be on 31.05.201g. The petitioner challenged the premature retirement through W.p. No. 12543 of 2015 and other writs, which were clubbed and disposed of by a common order dated 09.06.2015. Despite the court,s direction, the respondent_company failed to act on his appeal and denied rejnstatement. The gratuity amount oF Rs.15,08,333/- was ordered in favour of the petitioner by the l i l i I I I ,r' 3 sN'l W. P. No. 138 5-2 6 7 5 4 -2023 Controlling Atrth:-ity under the Gratuity Act on 05'01''2011)' but payment is withh:ld due to a pending appeal' Aggrieved try the same, the t)et.itioner filed the present writ petition PE RUSED RECORD: A) The order c a o .20 oas-r;ed in w.P No. 75 23i e r te he nd r " No -ir:e Before Admission' ,< ri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Det u:y Solicitcr G':neral takes notice on behalf of restonce'lt Nos.1 and 2 and waives further notice' Re,;istry is therefore directed not to issuo noli :e to respc,ndent Nos.1 and 2 in view of the waive - Is s le notice to rr::;Pondent No.3. [-earrted counsel for the petitioner is pe rmirt:d to tat<e (l Jl: personal notice on respondent flo 3 by Regis'-ered Post with Acknowledgment Dtre ;:nd file proof of se rYice thereof. -ea rred counsel for the petitioner submitted that t:ht: gratuity amount is not payable to resconJont No.3 a-c hr: has not vacated the quarters and he has ttot taken "No clue certificate" from the petitioner-com prllly ' He furtht:r submitted that the amount hes lle en depo:;ited before the Controlling Authority while filirg of the app,eal rtself . 4 SN,J W. P.No. 1385_26754-2023 ln view of the above, there shall be interim stay of payment of gratuity amount to respondent No.3 for a period of four (4) weeks. List the matter on 30.t0.2023.,, on behalf of the gratuity amount

6. Learned counsel appearing Cheva Mallaiah submits that the due to the petitioner cannot be withheld on the ground that the petitioner had not vacated the subject quarters allotted to him and requests eight weeks time for vacating the quarters. petitioner-

7. Learned Standing counser appearing on beharf of the respondent-compan y, on the other hand, submits that for release oF gratuity amount due to the petitioner, the petitioner already approached the appellate authority and the respondent company had already deposited an amount of Rs.15,08,333/_ and to that effect, learned Standing Counsel has also placed DDs dated 03.04.2020 and 12.06.2020 on record.

8. Learned Standing Counsel however contends that unless the petitioner vacates the quarters and submits no due certificate, the gratuity amount due to the petitioner cannot be released to the petitioner. I i I I l i I l I I I I I 1 5 5N,J W.P.No.1.185 1'6754 2023

9. This Cou-t opines that the gratuity cannor be withreld by the respondenl' company on the ground that the F)etitioner did not vacate the qJarters. Learned Standing (lounsel appearing on tehalf of the respondent-com pa ny is ,llso not in a position tc, prlar:e before this Court any provision thi)t errpowers the respor dr:nt-company to withhold gratuity on the grc,und that the petitiorer dicl not vacate the quarters. 1O. The ApS::,L Court in its i udoment dated

3.2018 reoorted rn 2(118 (5) Suoreme Court Cases 430 in ''Netram Sah v State of Chatisoarh and another" at Pa ras I.7, L8. L9. 20 and 22_olSCIved_a_S_uXdCE "17. In th,3 circumstances appearing in the (las€, would he the travesty of justice, if the appellanl: is denie<l his l€lgitimate claim of gratuity despite rerde -irrg "continuorJ; service" for a period of 25 years wl'rir:h even, accc,rling to the State, were regularize.d. flre questicn as to from which date such serv ces ln ere regulariz:ed was of no signiFicance for calculating the total ength of service for claiming gratuity ilmcult once the serrvices were regularized by the State.

18. lt w.s indeed the State who took 22 y{lars :o regularize the service of the appellant and went ()n taking rvork from the appellant on paymenl: 01, a meag€r salary of Rs.2776/- per month for 22 lctrg 6 SN,J W. P.No.1385_26754_2023 years uninterruptedly and only in the last three years, the State started paying a salary of Rs.11,107l_ per month to the appellant. Having regularized the services of the appellant, the State had no justifiable reason to deny the benefit of gratuity to the appellant which was his statutory right under the Act. It being a welfare legislation meant for the benefit of the employees, who serve their employer for a long time, it is the duty of the State to voluntarily pay the gratuity amount to the appellant rather than to force the employee to approach the Court to get his genuine claim.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we cannot agree with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court which is legally unsustainable. It is really unfortunate that the genuine claim of the appellant was being denied by the State at every stage of the proceedings up to this Court and dragged him in fruitless litigation for all these years.

20. indeed, this reminds us of the apt observations made by the Chief Justice M.C. Chagla (as he then was) in the case oF Firm Kaluram Sitaram vs. The Dominion of India (AIR 1954 Bombay 50). The learned Chief lustice in his distinctive style of writing while deciding the case between an individual citizen and the State made the following pertinent observations: .'Now, have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily reply on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case 1 SN,I W. P. N 0.138 5-26 7:4-2023 is a just one, even though legal defen:e s to it, it must act, as has been said LY oF the cit:iz(lr may be op31 eminer]t Jurlcles, as an honest person"'

22. l'h,= Iespondent-State is directed the gratuit/ amount as determined by Authorit'7 ,if il.hin three months to the appellant' to relea se/ rttY the Control irtg

11. The r\pex Clourt in the matter of "Gorakhpur Llniversity v Dr Shitla Prasad Nagendra" reported in 2001(6) Srll page 591 has h.:lcj tlrat pension and gratuity are no lrlnger rra:ters of any boun -y to be distributed by the Government' trut are valuable ri9rr1, u.Or',ed and property in their harrds and any delay in s{lttlern3nt and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously trnrl dealt with severally by imposing penalty in t1e Form of paymerrt lf nterest.

12. In Stat3 of "Jharkhand v Jitendra Kumar Sril'astawa" reported n 2(l 13 (12) SCC page 210, the Suprenre ('ourt has heldthat[)enslonandgratuityarenotbounty,but]rroperty within th<: rne lning of Article 300-A of the Constitutior r>f India' It is quite app,)rent that gratuity i! a property withir tht'r neaning of Article 300'lr of the Constitution of India and as st ch it is a constitutilnal right which cannot be taken away (rxcept by Authority ol' la\ '. 8 W.P.No.138S-267rr rt)'l a e fr. Y. avP u a

13. A x a al B k" r 2 t e e n e t n t, t r t n nd n el d n f s 72 n "18. Sub_Section (3A) of Section 7 oF the Gratuity Act is the most relevant provision for the determination of the present controversy. A perusal oF the sub_Section (3A) leaves no room for any doubt. that in case gratuity is not released to an employee within 30 days from the date the s me become payable under sub- section (3) of secti on 7, the employee in question would be entiued to.,...simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the central Government from time to time for rhe Governm"., ,"r, "JJffiHj:':_* l":li"lj is, however, one exception to the payment of interest envisaged under sub_ Section (3) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act. The aforesaid exception is provided for in the proviso under sub_Section (3A) of Section 7. A perusar of the said proviso revears, that no interest would be payable .,.. if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the en obrained permission,;'';ffir"l1Iiil:",I.",.: i;; authority for the delayed payment on this ground...,, The exception contemplated in the proviso under sub_ Section (3A). of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act, incorporates two ingredients. Where the two I I I I 9 SN,J W.P.No.13ll5 2t:7 >4 2Q23 ingred ents contemplated in the proviso Llnder slll)- Sectiol (3li) are fulfilled, the concerned employee r:ttn be derried lnterest despite delayed payment 3F g'atuity' Havinll cat:fully examined the proviso urnder s'Ll- Section (31\) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act, we: arr': of the view, t 1.lt (i) thr: f irst ingredient is, that payment of gra''uit1' to the erlplo)'€e was delayed because of some fault oF tlle employee lrimself . (ii) The r;ercond ingredient is that the corrtro'li rg autho-ity;lrould have approved such withholdintt of gratuity (c,f the concerned employee) on the t)asi'i of the al erlec 'ault of the employee himself. None of the other sub-sections of Section 7 of Gratuit) Act, would have the effect oF negating conclus iorl clrawn hereinabove." L4, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitaone{'in \r.P.No.26754 ot 2O23 submits t[rat in view of the orders <lated 12.06.2025 passed in W'P'No 1385 of 2023 no furthr:r orders are necessary in W'P'No'2"6754 ot 2023. Bringing the said submission of the learrred counsel appearing on rbehalf of the petitioner in W.P'No'2'6754 ot 2023 on record which is not disputed by the learned counsel appr:aring on behalf of the 3'd resportdlent in r 10 sN,j W.p.No.1385_26754_2023 a'_\ W.p.No.2G7S4 of 2023 the said W.P.No.267S4 oJ 2O23 filed by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Peddapalli District, Telangana, is closed.

15. TAKI GIN TO cON SID TIo N: a) and, The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Coltieries Company Limited appearing on behalf of the respondents and, c) The order of this Court dated 25.Og.2O23 passed in W.p.No.26754 of 2023 (referred to and extracted above) The writ petition No.1385 ot 2OZ3 is disposed of directing the respondents to forthwith release the gratuity amount due to the petitioner in accordance to law duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted above, within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, and the petitioner shafl vacate the subject quarters upon receipt of the said gratuity 11, SN,J W. P.No.1385 i6754 2023 amount within a period of four(4) weeks there:rfter duly clearing all the arrears of rent due towards the quErrters to the Responrlr:nt Company, within a period of two (2) weeks there after on receipt of the gratuity amourrts due to the petition(lr as per petitioner's legal entitlemenlt as per Law, from the Respondent Company. However, therre shal! be no order as to costs. Miscella rr-.ous applications, if any, pendin!l sl'r;rll stand closed l I SiD/-N. SRIHARI PEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' '$ecr olt oFFlcER 'Bhnu"n Fed Hills The Maraging t)irector cum Vice-Chairman g-i!91'"n [,"*,.a? nf, , "i ! imt -t .:,1;*ff tBfi : x ]Jtlf fl u, u g,', d u,',, P e d d a p a r r i B:[?: N4;aneqer, RG-lll, singareni collaries Ltd' Ramagundarr' Peddapalli o'-''' *' " E.3 B 3 F li E tRi'Hltrffiss'yl 1l i3H 31 L%! l RE l'ii 3?"tJB I5'SflfJo*o*oHAN GouD suNKAR'' cENrR\L ci.vr sr' " COUNSEt. [C'F'UC] Two CD CoPie; To

2. J, 4 5 6 7 PSK. GJP HIGH COL'RT DATED:12lOOliZ025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.1385 AND 26754 of 2023 ,1 //1,,.G. r) !,! CC TODAY -<a=- lr,B t HES Iq c il I JLIN 2025 !/ ,. .l ..... .l .r't' '-..'-t" . - -',.j - "- -- rr',''1,ii:.,'- - DISPOSING C,F THE W.P.No.1385 OF 2023 l\ND CLOSING THE W.P.No.26754 OF 2023 WITHOUT COSTS [\,\