Tamilnadu in the case of K.Ganesan Vs. The Secretary to vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., and Ors, and Division

Honble Supreme Court and Honble High Court in WP No. 5537 of 2006, dt. 23- 08-2006, and Honble High Court of Tamilnadu in the case of K.Ganesan Vs. The Secretary to the Government, in WP No. 32462 of 2014, dt. 18-02-2019, and Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7113 of 2014, of SLP ( C ) No, 25015 of 2011, dt.01-08-2014, in the case of D.D.Tiwari (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. UttarHaryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., and Ors, and Division Bench of the Honble High Court of // --,-J Tamilnadu, at fVladras, in W.A.No.887 of 2007, dt. 17-12-2008, in the case of Government of Tamilnadu Vs. M.Daivasigamani, and also orders of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.51 18 of 2009, dt. 27-07-2009, in the case of Kerala State Cashew Dev. Corp. Ltd., and Anr Vs. N.Asokan, and prays to direct the respondents herein to pay interest @ 18 (percent) on the belated payment of Gratuity, and also award compensatory damages to the petitioner for forcing him to approach this Hon'ble Court at the age of 72 years. lA NO: 1 OF 2A23 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to pay interest @ 18% on the belated payment of Gratuity for nearly more than 14 years, by considering the representation of the petitioner dt. 23-1 1-2023, pending order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI GURRAM SRINIVAS counser ror the Responde""' ?S?'3['jifrEi[t^[="%l"irERrEs co LrD) The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA ORDER: Heard Sri Gurram Srinivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri p. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned standing counsel for singareni coilieries Company Limited, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particulariy one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the responCents in not paying interest on the belatecl payrment of Gratuity of nearly more than 14 years i.e., ii'onr the ciate of the removal of the petitioner i.e., 11-03-2009 to till the paynrent of Gratuity amount on 13-7L-2A23, as hiqhly illegal, irregular, contrary to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 5537 of 2006, dt. 23-08-2006, and Honble High Couri of Tamilnadu in the case of K.Ganesan Vs. The Secretary to the Government, in WP No. 32462 of ZOl4, dt. 18.02.2019, and Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7113 of 2OL4, of SLP (C) No. 25015 of ZA1.L, dt. 01.08.2014, in the case of D.D.Tiwari (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., and Ors, and Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Tamilnadu, at Madras, 2 wp-:roso-?|ii in W.A.No.BB7 of 2007, dt. 77-72-2008, in the case of Government of Tamilnadu Vs. M.Daivasigamani, and also orders; of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5118 of 2009, dt. 27-O7 -2009, in the case of Kerala State Cashew Dev. Corp. Ltd., and Anr Vs. N.Asokan, and prqys to direct the i-espondents herein to pay interest @ 18 (percent) on the beialed pavment of Gratuity, and also award compensatory clamages to ihe petitioner for forcing him to approach this Hon'l:je Court at the age of 72 years and pass...".

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 06.11.t974 as General Mazdoor/ temporary channel mazdoor in the respondent company/ thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Area Safety Manager. As the petitioner fell sick for a period of six months, the management issued removal order vide order dated 11.03.2009 and the authorities settled an amount of RS., 16,72,038/- towards Provident Fund and paid to the petitioner. The petitioner made repeated requests to the authorities/company to release the Gratuity amount but the respondents did not sanction the same. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 29518 of 2012 before this Court and this Court passed order dated 28.09.2022 to the respondents to pay the Gratuity amount to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed J SN, J wP 33696 2023 Contempt Case No. 1945 of 2023 and the respondents deposited an amount of Rs.B,9B,05B/- on 13.11.2023 in the bank account. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there had been inordinate delay of more than 14 years on the part of the respondent company for payment of gratuity i.e. from the date of removal i.e. 11.03.2009 to 13.11.2023 and hence the petitioner is seeking interest on the delay of the payment of gratuity amount as per the settled law and therefore the respondents are liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity for nearly more than 14 years and aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearino on behalf of the petitioner contended that the oetitioner submitted reoresentation dated 23.11.2O23 to the resoondents seekinq pavment of interest @ 18o/o on the delayed oavment of qratuity for more than 14 years. The respondents however, in spite of receiot of the said representation dated 23.11.2023 had not acted uoon the same and therefore, the oetitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ oetition. 4 SN, J wP 3J696 2023

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that the delay occurred not due to inactiveness on the part of the respondents but due to certain court orders and hence the respondents cannot be burdened with the payment of interest on the gratuity amount and therefore, the writ petition needs to be dismissed. PERUSED THE RECORD 6 This Co rt ooines that thouoh an order of removal had been oassed aqainst the petitioner in the vear 2oo9 petitioner received the Gratuitv amount onty on is leqal oetitioner ha been denied

13.1 L.20 entitlement for Gratuity for more than a decade arbitrarilv bv the respondents.

7. The Apex court in the judgment dated 01.08.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7713 of 20L4, in the case of D.D. Tewari (D) Thr. LRs Vs. Uttar Harvan Biili Vitran Nioa Ltd.. & others in considering the case of delayed payment of gratuity at para Nos.4, 5,and 6 of the said judgment observed as under: "4. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006 and the order of the learned single Judge 5 SN, J wP*33696_2023 after adverting to the relevant facts and the legal position has given a direction to the employer-respondent to pay the erroneously withheld pensionary benefits and the gratuity amount to the legal representatives of the deceased employee without awarding interest for which the appellant is legally entitled, therefore, this Court has to exercise its appellate jurisdiction as there is a miscarriage of justice in denying the interest to be paid or payable by the employer from the date of the entitlement of the deceased employee till the date of payment as per the aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to supra. We have to award interest at the rate of 9o/o per annum both on the amount of pension due and the gratuity amount which are to be paid by the respondent.

5. It is needless to mention that the respondents have erroneously withheld payment of gratuity amount for which the appellants herein are entitled in law for payment of penal amount on the delayed pavment of gratuity under the orovisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. we do not propose to do that in the case in hand.

6. For the reasons stated above, we award interest at the rate of 9olo on the delayed payment of oension and gratuity amount from the date of entitlement till the date of the actual payment. If this amount is not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a coov of this order. the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18o/o per annum from the date of amount falls due to the deceased employee. With the above directions, this appeal is allowed".

8. The Apex Court in the Judqment reported in AIR 1999 SC 1212 in Uma Aoarwal Vs. State of U.P. quantified the interest payable for the delayed oavment of terminal benefits as Rs.1.OO.OOO/-. \- t' 6 - SN, J wP_33696_2023

9. The Apex Court Judqment reported in 2OO1 (9) SCC 687 in Viiav L Malhotra Vs. State of U.P. directed the respondents to oay the appellants interest @ 18o/o oer annum.

10. The Apex Court in the Judqment reported in AIR 1985 SC 356 in State of Kerala Vs. P. Padmanabhan Nair confirmed the rate of 60lo interest per annum by Kerala Hiqh Court.

11. The Division Bench of this Court in its iudoment dated 23.O8.2OO6 oassed in W.P.No.5537 of 2OO6 upholdino the order of the Tribunal directinq oavment of interest at 12olo p.a. dulv takino into account the inordinate delav on the oart of resoondents in releasino the terminal benefits due to the petitioner thereunder observed as under: "The order of the Tribunal, directing payment of interest at L2o/o p.a. is a well considered and reasoned order, taking into account the inordinate delay in the part of the petitioner herein in completing the disciplinary proceedings and their failure to pay the terminal benefits, legitimately due to the respondent. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal or the discretion exercised in granting the respondent applicant $--'-L!1. 7 SN, J wP 33696 2()23 interest at !2o/o p.a. for the delaying payment of terminal benefits". L2. The Division Bench of the then combined State of A.P. Hioh Court in the Judoment reported in 2OO2 (1) ALT 403 in Gove ment of A.P. Vs. C. Purush ham directed Davment interest on terminal benefits at 12olo Der annum.

13. This Court opines that the reouest of the oetitioner in not paving interest on the belated oavment of qratuitv amount due the oetitioner for nearlv more than 14 vears needs to be considered bv the respondents in accordance to law dulv takinq into consideration the observations in the Judgments of the Aoex Court and the '2' Judoments of the Divisio n Bench of this Court referred to and extracted above. L4. Takinq into consideration : (a) The facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, (c) The order of this Court dated 2e.O9.2O22 passed in W.P. No. 29518 of B0{2 of this Court, 8 SN, J wP 33696 2023 (d) The contents of the petitioners' representation dated 23J.t.2023 addressed to the respondents herein which had not been considered as on date, (e) The observations in the judgment/order made in W.P. No. 5537 of 2OO6, dated 23.08.20O6 referred to and extracted above, The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner made by the petitioner's representation dated 23.LL.2023 addressed to the respondents seeking payment of interest @ 18o/o per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity amount due to the petitioner for more than 14 years duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court and our High Court in Judgments referred to and extracted above, in accordance to law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner on the petitioner's representation dated 23.tL.2023. There shall be no order as to costs. i 9 SN, J wP 33696 2023 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the writ Petition shall also stand closed. /TRUE COPY/ To,

1. The Chairman and fi/anaging Director, Singareni Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Khairtabad , HYdera SD/- B.REKHA SISTANT REGI SECTION OFFICER es ComPanY Limited, $ \

2.TheGeneralManager,SingareniColleriesCompanyLimited.,,N/andamarri i, Mi nche rIJ'b'i tt,rci--+ O qZi t' N/ a nd am a rri Area' Area, pO Ka lyai i k'n,

3. One CC to SRI GURRAIU SRINIVAS' Advocate' IOPUC] 4.oneCCtoSRIP.SRIHARSHAREDDY,(SCFoRSINGARENICOLLIERIES " co LTD). IoPUC]

5. Two CD CoPies- BSK TKS flMUq ^ HIGH GOURT DATED:1710612025 -1 . i-. t).rr fiL - r,,i ,c L) 0 6 JAN 2[2il * * ORDER WP.No.33696 ot 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS @rnn* rotrr-t'{