Madras High Court · 2025

W.P.No.16883 of 2021Respondent quash the same and pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court.Prayer in W.M.P.To pass an order of ad interim stay of all further proceedings of payment out of Rs.198700/- deposited at the office of II Respondent towards the Account of PG Case No. 102 of 2014 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Appearance of Parties:For Petitioner : M/s. S.K.Shanmugakani and C.N.Ehoma Saviour, AdvocatesFor Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.R.Kumaravel, AGPFor Respondent 3 : M/s. A. Thirumaran and E.Ashok Kumar, AdvocatesJ U D G M E N THeard. 2.The petitioner is a private college that has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 24.03.2020 passed by the first respondent, the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (P.G. Act), in P.G. Appeal No. 136/2017. By the said order, the Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the 2nd respondent, the Controlling Authority, rendered in P.G. Case No. 102/2014 dated 15.07.2016, and confirmed that the 3rd respondent is entitled to gratuity in the sum of Rs. 1,23,750/-, thereby dismissing the appeal. Notably, the petitioner in its writ prayer has only sought to set aside the order 2/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021of the Appellate Authority dated 24.03.2020 and has not challenged the order of the Controlling Authority. As such, even if the writ petition were allowed as prayed, the order of the Controlling Authority would continue to remain in force.3.When the writ petition was listed for admission, this Court, while directing notice to the contesting 3rd respondent, passed the following interim order: –“In case the 3rd respondent withdraws the gratuity amount deposited by the petitioner, such withdrawal will be subject to the final decision of the writ petition.”4.However, when the matter was taken up on 05.11.2024, this Court directed that the writ petition be placed before the National Lok Adalat scheduled for 14.12.2024. As per the note submitted by the Lok Adalat, no settlement could be arrived at, and the matter was accordingly returned to this Court for disposal on merits.5.The case of the petitioner college is that the 3rd respondent was appointed as a Librarian with effect from 06.09.1997. It was further alleged that during the stock verification for the academic year 2009–2010, 1,725 books 3/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021were found missing, valued at Rs. 2,77,576.46. A memo dated 19.07.2010 was issued to the 3rd respondent in this regard, to which he submitted a reply dated 20.07.2010, denying any liability for the loss. The college also stated that two other employees, namely R. Bharathiraja and D. Sylvanus Vinoth Kumar, were relieved from service in October 2010. It appears that the 3rd respondent also tendered his resignation by letter dated 31.08.2010, and he was relieved from service on the same day.6.The 3rd respondent filed a claim for gratuity before the Controlling Authority in June 2012. Due to the delay in filing, he also submitted an application for condonation of delay in P.G.I.A. No. 41/2012, pursuant to which notice was issued to the petitioner management. In response, the petitioner filed a counter statement contending that there was no legal obligation for unaided private colleges to pay gratuity and that the delay had not been properly explained. However, the authority, after considering the petitioner’s counsel’s reply dated 28.09.2012—which made no reference to gratuity but instead stated that the 3rd respondent had accepted a settlement after deduction of three months’ notice pay, receiving Rs. 10,000/-, and further warned that failure to withdraw the gratuity application would lead to action on 4/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021pending charges—found that the management had failed in its statutory duty to pay gratuity. Accordingly, the delay was condoned by order dated 07.02.2014.7.Following the condonation of delay, the 3rd respondent’s gratuity application was taken on file as P.G. No. 102/2014. The petitioner management filed a counter statement dated 25.07.2014, asserting that the 3rd respondent was solely responsible for the loss of library books valued at Rs. 2,77,576/-. It was further alleged that during the enquiry, he tendered an apology and sought to be relieved immediately, and that his resignation letter and relieving order were forged. 8.Before the Controlling Authority, the 3rd respondent examined himself as PW1 and produced ten documents, which were marked as Exs. P1 to P10. The petitioner management did not examine any witnesses but filed six documents, marked as Exs. R1 to R6. The third respondent also marked his resignation letter dated 04.09.2010 as Ex. R6, his relieving order dated 15.02.2011 as Ex. R7, and the service certificate issued on the same date as Ex. R8. 5/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 20219.The Controlling Authority, by a detailed order dated 15.07.2016, allowed the gratuity claim filed in P.G. Case No. 102/2014. The order, running to 15 typed pages, records the enquiry proceedings held on various dates, including the appearance of counsel on behalf of the petitioner management. The authority held that the 3rd respondent was entitled to gratuity of Rs. 1,23,750/-, having determined his last drawn wages at Rs. 16,500/- and his total length of service as 13 years, rounded off accordingly. Interest at the rate of 10% per annum was also awarded in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Importantly, the authority recorded a specific finding that although the petitioner alleged that the third respondent, as librarian, was responsible for the loss of books and that an enquiry was pending, no action was taken under Section 4(6) of the Act to forfeit the gratuity.10.The petitioner management, somewhat curiously, referred to the order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the second respondent in P.G. Case No. 102/2014 as an ex parte order. They contended that the matter had been posted for recording of evidence on 20.06.2016 at 3:00 p.m., and that their counsel arrived at 3:10 p.m., by which time the case had been set ex parte on the ground that 6/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021there was no representation. The matter was thereafter posted for orders on 08.07.2016. The petitioner attributed the delay in appearance of their counsel to a traffic hold-up.11.Despite the pendency of the said application, the petitioner proceeded to file an appeal before the first respondent under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act on 09.12.2016. The appeal was registered as P.G. Appeal No. 136/2017. In compliance with the statutory requirement, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,98,700/- by way of a bank cheque with the second respondent. In the grounds of appeal, particularly in paragraphs 11 and 12, the petitioner reiterated that the Controlling Authority had passed the order in their absence. Pursuant to the filing of the appeal, notice was issued to the third respondent, who filed a reply statement dated 27.06.2017.12.The reply submitted by the 3rd respondent was summarised by the 1st respondent Appellate Authority in the final order dated 24.03.2020, and it is appropriate to extract the relevant portion here.@,Wjpahf U:/ 16.500-? khjr;rk;gsk; bgw;wjd; mog;gilapy; U:/1.23.750-? tH';FkhW epWtdj;jpw;F 22/05/2012 md;W gjpt";ry; mDg;gpajhft[k; epu;thfk; mjid 23/05/2012 md;W bgw;Wf;bfhz;L 7/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021vt;tpj gjpYk; mDg;gtpy;iy vd;Wk;. epu;thfj;jug;g[ tHf;fwp"u; jpU/rp/vd;/ vncwhkhnrtpah; jd;id 06/10/2014 Kjy; 07/07/2015 Koa Rkhh; 125 nfs;tpfs; FWf;F tprhuizapy; nfl;ljhft[k; gy ngu;; Kd;dpiyapy; jd;id xU jpUld; vd;Wk; gzj;ija[k; Mtz';fisa[k; g[j;jf';fisa[k; ifahly; bra;J epu;thfj;ij nkhro br;aJ epu;thfj;jpd; byl;lu; ngLfis jpUo ePna jFe;j thu;j;ijfis g{h;j;jp bra;J gzpr;rhd;W tH';fpajhft[k; rk;gsr; rhd;W tH';fpajhft[k; gzpapypUe;J tpLtpj;jjhft[k; nghypahd Mtz';fis jahu; bra;J epu;thfj;ij nkhro bra;Js;sha; vd;Wk; jpl;o nghrpajhft[k; mjid cjtp Mizau; Ml;nrgpj;J juf;Fiwthd thu;j;ijfis cgnahfpf;ff; TlhJ vd;Wk; mjw;fhd Mjhuj;ij fhl;o epU:gpf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W vr;rupj;jjhft[k; nky;KiwaPl;L tHf;fwp"u; xU khj fhy mtfhrk; nfhupajd; mog;gilapy; mLj;j FWf;F tprhuiz 25/08/2015 md;W xj;jp itf;fg;gl;ljhft[k; md;iwa njjpapy; M$uhftpy;iy vd;Wk;. 17/12/2012 Kjy; 29/05/2015 Koa 2 tUlk; 5 khj';fs; eilbgw;w 51 tprhuizfspYk; jd;id FWf;F tprhuiz bra;j nghJk; epu;thfj;jug;gpy; vtUk; M$uhftpy;iy vd;Wk;. epu;thfj;jpw;F bjuptpf;fhknyna jd; kPJ Mjhukw;w bgha;ahd mtJ}whd Fw;wr;rhl;oid Rkj;jp juf;Fiwthd thu;j;ijfshy; jpl;o ngrp mtkhdg;gLj;jpajhy; jhd; kpft[k; mjpu;r;rpf;Fk; kd cisr;rYf;Fs;shdjhy; rKjhaj;jpy; xU ey;y bghWg;g[ tha;e;j kupahijf;fFupa Mrpupau; gzpapy; cs;s jd;id tHf;fwp"u; cgnahfpf;f jfhj thu;j;ijfshy; kpft[k; mtkhdk; mile;jjhft[k; tHf;fwp"u; kPJ jf;f eltof;if vLf;FkhW bjhHpyhsu; Mizau; mtu;fis cjtp Mizau; K:yk; 10/09/2015 njjpapl;l fojk; K:yk; nfl;ljhft[k; tHf;fwp"u; jdJ 25/08/2015 njjpapl;l bknkhtpy; tHf;if ,k;kd;wj;jpy; elj;j jpUg;jp ,y;iy vd;Wk;. ntW ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F khw;wk; bra;a[khW bjhHpyhsu; Mizaiu nfl;ljhft[k; Mizau; mjid Vw;fhky; ,nj kd;wj;jpy; elj;j ntz;Lk; vd;W bjuptpj;jjd; mog;gilapYk; jFjpapd; mog;gilapYk; cjtp Mizau; 15/07/2016 md;W gzpf;bfhilj; bjhifahf U:/ 1.23.750-? 10# tl;oa[ld; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;W cj;jutpl;ljhft[k; mt;t[j;jutpid 05/08/2016 md;W bgw;whu; vd;Wk; mjw;fhd xg;g[jy; ml;il cjtp Mizau; mYtyfj;jpy; bgwg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;Wk; Mdhy; epu;thfk; jPu;g;gpid 15/08/2016 md;W jhd; bgwg;gl;ljhf nky;KiwaPl;L kDtpy; bgha;ahd jfty; mspj;Js;sJ vd;Wk; 15/08/2016 Rje;jpu jpdj;jpy; m";ry; Jiwapy; vt;thW m";ry; Kj;jpiuapl;L jghy; gl;Lthlh bra;a Koa[k; vd;Wk; cz;ikapy; jghy; Jiwapd; Kj;jpiu ciuapy; 05/08/2016 vd;W gjpag;gl;Ls;sij 15/08/2016 vd jpUj;jp 8/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021b$uhf;;!; vLj;J Mjhukhf jhf;fy; bra;J nky;KiwaPl;L kd;wj;ij Vkhw;wpa[s;shu; vd;Wk; kD epiyf;fj;jf;fjy;y vd;gjhy; js;Sgo bra;a ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; bjuptpj;Js;shu;/@13.After hearing both parties, the 1st respondent Appellate Authority held that the order passed by the Controlling Authority was fully justified. It found that the petitioner management had failed to establish that any amount had in fact been paid to the 3rd respondent, and that their claim of having adjusted the gratuity payment was merely an afterthought. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner management and confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority.14.As already noted, the petitioner has not challenged the order of the Controlling Authority dated 15.07.2016 before this Court, despite having made several allegations against the said authority and labelling the order as an ex parte one. In that order, the Controlling Authority, while commenting on the conduct of the petitioner, recorded the following observations: –@vjpu;kDjhuu; epu;thfk; kDjhuuplk; 07/07/2015 md;W bjhlu; FWf;F tprhuiz bra;J FWf;F tprhuiz Kot[whj epiyapy; kDjhuu; vjpu;kDjhuu; epu;thf fy;Y}upapy; brayhsiu tprhuiz bra;a mDkjp nfhup tHf;F xj;jp itf;fg;gl;lJ/ vjpu;kDjhuu; epu;thfk; jug;gpy; miHg;ghiz bgw;w gpwFk; M$upy;iy/ gy tha;jh njjpfspy; tHf;F 9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021xj;jp itf;fg;gl;Lk; vju;kDjhuu; epu;thfk; M$upy;iy/ vjpu;kDjhuu; epu;thfk; kDjhuu; ,k;kd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s 04/09/2010 md;W ,uh$pdhkh fojk; 15/02/2011 md;W gzptpLtpg;g[ cj;jut[ 15/02/2011 njjpa gzpf;fhy rhd;wpjH; Mfpaitfis bgha;ahf cUthf;fg;gl;l Mtzk; vd;W bjuptpj;j Fw;wr;rhl;oid epU:gpf;f mtu;fs; jug;gpy; bjhlu;e;J M$uhfp mtu;fs; jug;gpy; gpukhz thf;FK:yk; jhf;fy; bra;J mtu;fs; jug;g[ rhl;rpa';fs; K:yk; FWf;F tprhuiz bra;J mtu;fs; jug;gpid epU:gpf;f ntz;Lk; my;yJ Mtz';fs; K:ykhf epU:gpf;fg;gl;oUf;f ntz;Lk;/ mt;thW vJt[k; bra;ahj epiyapy; mf;Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; epU:gpf;fg;glhky; kDjhuUf;F Mjuthft[k; vjpu;kDjhuu; epu;thfj;jpw;F vjpupilahft[k; jPu;khdpf;fg;gl;L ,U jug;gpYk; jhf;fy; bra;j Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapYk; kDjhuupd; rhl;rp mog;gilapYk; kDjhuupd; gzpf;fhyk; 06/09/1997 Kjy; 31/08/2010 tiu 13 tUl';fs; gzpg[upe;Js;shu; vd jPu;khdpf;fg;gLfpwJ/@15.The petitioner challenged the order of the Controlling Authority before the Appellate Authority in the gratuity appeal but failed to convince the appellate forum. Furthermore, no challenge has been made before this Court to the findings recorded in that order. The 2nd respondent, against whom certain allegations have been made, was not impleaded in his personal capacity, thereby precluding any examination of alleged personal motives. Even to ascertain whether there was any official lapse, the petitioner has not sought to challenge the order itself before this Court. Although certain allegations were made in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ 10/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021petition, no material has been placed on record to substantiate them. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent dated 30.08.2021, it has been clearly stated in paragraph 13 that the 2nd respondent passed the order on 15.07.2016 after due proceedings, and that cross-examination was conducted.16.Before this Court, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 27.09.2021, wherein it was stated that the 3rd respondent had received three cheques amounting to Rs. 5,000/-, as well as additional payments of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 12,425/- towards his salary for September, which he had deposited into his bank account on 27.10.2020. However, it is unclear how this assertion advances the petitioner’s case with respect to the gratuity claim, especially when the Controlling Authority had already found that there was no forfeiture of gratuity in terms of Section 4(6) of the P.G. Act.17.Subsequently, when the matter was listed for final disposal, the petitioner filed another reply affidavit dated 17.02.2025 in open court, contending that the 3rd respondent’s salary during August 2010 was Rs. 15,850/-, but that the House Rent Allowance of Rs. 1,200/- and Miscellaneous 11/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021Allowance of Rs. 50/- ought not to be considered for the purpose of calculating gratuity. It was submitted that his last drawn salary, for gratuity purposes, should be reckoned at Rs. 14,600/- and, therefore, the Controlling Authority erred in computing the gratuity payable.18.The counsel for the petitioner appears to have misunderstood the scope of a writ of certiorari, effectively attempting to convert this Court into a forum for resolving factual disputes with the 3rd respondent. Disregarding the limited jurisdiction of this Court in such proceedings, learned counsel sought to rely on case law relating to fraud, arguing that no judgment can be permitted to stand if obtained through fraudulent means. In support of this contention, reference was made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros., reported in (1992) 1 SCC 534, wherein the following was stated in paragraph 20: –“Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.”19.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by Lrs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. and Others, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 12/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 20211, held as follows: –“….The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean-hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax- evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court - process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial tantamounts to playing fraud on the court.”20.It was therefore submitted that, since the 3rd respondent had allegedly committed fraud, he is not entitled to receive gratuity from the authorities. With regard to the right of forfeiture under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the management retains the right to conduct an enquiry even at this stage and to recover the loss allegedly caused by the 3rd respondent. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v. Sri Rabindranath Choubey, reported in (2020) 18 SCC 71, particularly the observations made in paragraphs 10.31 and 13/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 202111, which are extracted below: –“10.31 Several service benefits would depend upon the outcome of the inquiry, such as concerning the period during which inquiry remained pending. It would be against the public policy to permit an employee to go scotfree after collecting various service benefits to which he would not be entitled, and the event of superannuation cannot come to his rescue and would amount to condonation of guilt. Because of the legal fiction provided under the rules, it can be completed in the same manner as if the employee had remained in service after superannuation, and appropriate punishment can be imposed. Various provisions of the Gratuity Act discussed above do not come in the way of departmental inquiry and as provided in Section 4(6) and Rule 34.3 in case of dismissal gratuity can be forfeited wholly or partially, and the loss can also be recovered. An inquiry can be continued as provided under the relevant service rules as it is not provided in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 that inquiry shall come to an end as soon as the employee attains the age of superannuation. We reiterate that the Act does not deal with the matter of disciplinary inquiry, it contemplates recovery from or forfeiture of gratuity wholly or partially as per misconduct committed and does not deal with punishments to be imposed and does not supersede the Rules 34.2 and 34.3 of the CDA Rules. The mandate of Section 4(6) of recovery of loss provided under Section 4(6)(a) and forfeiture of gratuity wholly or partially under Section 4(6)(b) is furthered by the Rules 34.2 and 34.3. If there cannot be any dismissal after superannuation, intendment of the provisions of Section 4(6) would be defeated. The provisions of section 4(1) and 4(6) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 have to be given purposive interpretation, and no way interdict holding of the departmental inquiry and punishment to be imposed is not the subject matter dealt with under the Act. 10.32 Thus considering 14/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021the provisions of Rules 34.2 and 34.3 of the CDA Rules, the inquiry can be continued given the deeming fiction in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service and appropriate punishment, including that of dismissal can be imposed apart from the forfeiture of the gratuity wholly or partially including the recovery of the pecuniary loss as the case may be.11.In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and in view of the decision of three Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Lal Bhaskar (supra) and our conclusions as above, it is observed and held that (1) the appellant – employer has a right to withhold the gratuity during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, and (2) the disciplinary authority has powers to impose the penalty of dismissal/major penalty upon the respondent even after his attaining the age of superannuation, as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated while the employee was in service.”21.It must be noted that the decision of the Supreme Court was rendered in the context of an employee working in a coalfield, governed by the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, 1978. The Court also dealt with the situation of government employees, in whose case disciplinary proceedings may be continued post-retirement if specific powers are reserved during their service. In such instances, losses caused to the government may also be recovered under the applicable Pension Rules, though only within a limited time frame as prescribed therein. However, the present case involves an 15/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021employee of a private college, and neither the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 nor the Rules framed thereunder contain any provision allowing continuation of disciplinary proceedings after cessation of employment. Moreover, this is not a case of termination or retirement with reserved powers to proceed, but one of resignation, making the question of continuing any enquiry after separation from service legally untenable.22.Since the petitioner did not reserve any right to recover the alleged loss from the 3rd respondent at the time of relieving him from service, there is no basis to claim such a right after the cessation of employment, especially when the resignation was accepted by the management. Consequently, the interpretation placed by the Supreme Court in the context of Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act does not apply to the present case.23.Lastly, the counsel made a desperate attempt to argue that gratuity ought to be calculated based on the actual last drawn basic pay, excluding House Rent Allowance (HRA) and Miscellaneous Allowance (MA). However, the 2nd respondent, in his order dated 15.07.2016, calculated the gratuity as 16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021follows: –@,Wjpahf kDjhuupd; gzpf;fhyk; 06/09/1997 Kjy; 31/08/2010 Koa vd jPu;khdpf;fg;gl;L mtu; ,Wjpahf bgw;w rk;gsk; U:/ 16.500-? mog;gilapy; kDjhuUf;F gzpf;bfhil fPH;fz;lthW fzf;fPL bra;ag;gLfpwJ/kDjhuUila rk;gsk;U:/ 16.500-?kDjhuUila gzpf;fhyk;06/09/1997 Kjy; 31/08/2010 tiu12 Mz;Lfs; 11 khjk; 25 ehl;fs;mjhtJ 13 Mz;Lfs;kDjhuUf;Fupa gzpf;bfhil 16500 x 15 x 13 = U:/ 1.23.750-?@bjhif 2624.The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in V.P. Sreedharan v. Appellate Authority & Others, rendered in W.P. No. 27527 of 2017 dated 20.02.2018, wherein the Court held as follows:- “As per the definition given under Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioner's gratuity has been rightly worked out excluding the HRA, CCA, TA. Hence the petitioner cannot have any grievance over the same.”25.Assuming that the calculation made by the Controlling Authority in the order dated 15.07.2016 was erroneous, it becomes necessary to examine whether the petitioner had raised this specific ground in their memorandum of appeal before the 1st respondent. In paragraph 18 of the appeal, the petitioner 17/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021raised the following ground: –“The controlling authority has failed to note that the Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 which was filed by the respondent / employee as his basic pay of Rs.8,000/- and D.A. only Rs.300/- in the year 2008 and 2009 and having no proof for receiving salary of Rs.16,500/- per month.” 26.From the above, it is evident that the petitioner did not specifically plead that the sum of Rs. 16,500/-, claimed as the 3rd respondent’s last drawn pay, included components such as HRA and Miscellaneous Allowance, which they now contend should be excluded for the purpose of calculating gratuity. In the absence of any such plea, the authority cannot be said to have committed any error in its computation.27.To further weaken their own case, in the affidavit dated 31.07.2021 filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has, in paragraph 3, stated as follows:-I submit that the third respondent Joined services of the petitioner college on 06.09.1997 as librarian and his salary was fixed at Rupees 4500/- and his salary was increased to Rs.12550/- in the year 2009 as follows:-PayRs.800018/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021DARs.2000HRARs.1000CCARs. 300Special all andMARs.1200TotalRs.1255028.In the reply affidavit filed later that same year, on 27.09.2021, the petitioner stated the following in paragraph 4: –“The allegations of the third respondent in para 5 of the counter that his last drawn salary was Rupees is 16,500/- is denied the last drawn salary of the third respondent is 15850 rupees. Out of the said dearness allowance is 800 rupees. The other allowances are not computable for calculating wages for the payment of gratuity.” 29.In a subsequent reply affidavit filed nearly four years later, on 17.02.2025, the petitioner stated the following figures: –I submit that the third respondent joined the services of the petitioner college on 06.09.1997 as Librarian and his salary was fixed at Rs.4500/- and his salary was increased time and again and in August 2010 his salary paid was as follows:-PayRs.8000/-Special PayRs.4800/-Dearness PayRs.1000/-DARs.800/-HRARs.1200/-19/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021PayRs.8000/-MARs.11150/-______TotalRs.15850/-30.Thus, the petitioner not only failed to raise the issue before the Appellate Authority but also, within a span of four years, placed three different and inconsistent statements before this Court regarding the 3rd respondent’s last drawn salary. Such conduct is highly improper and amounts to a serious abuse of the process of court. Filing contradictory sworn affidavits cannot be treated lightly, and in ordinary circumstances, this Court would have been justified in imposing severe costs for such conduct. Even assuming the petitioner’s argument regarding salary computation is accepted, the difference in the gratuity amount would only be Rs. 14,250/-. In a writ petition invoking the writ of certiorari, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the factual findings or deduct any amount on such a minor variation. While the Court is inclined to impose heavy costs for the petitioner’s conduct, it refrains from doing so solely on the ground that the petitioner claims to have paid a slightly higher amount to the 3rd respondent.20/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 202131.In light of the above, no ground has been made out to warrant interference with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent Appellate Authority, which confirms the order of the 2nd respondent dated 15.07.2016—a decision that, notably, has not been challenged in this writ petition. Accordingly, W.P. No. 16883 of 2021 stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected W.M.P. is also dismissed. Although this Court was inclined to impose costs on the petitioner for the manner in which the proceedings were conducted, it refrains from doing so in view of the alleged excess amount already paid to the 3rd respondent. Hence, there shall be no order as to costs. 29.05.2025 ayNCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoCopy to1.The Appellate Authority Payment of Gratuity, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.2. The Authority for the Payment of Gratuity, 21/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021 Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. 22/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16883 of 2021DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, Jay Pre-Delivery Judgment made inW.P.No. 16883 of 2021andW.M.P.No.17863 of 2021 29.05.202523/23