Topic
Gratuity is a statutory terminal benefit payable to employees in India under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, upon retirement, resignation, or death after five years of continuous service.
Delhi High Court ruled that a college cannot offset alleged excess provident-fund credits against retirees’ gratuity, reinforcing statutory protection under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The decision bars any post-retirement PF recovery by adjusting gratuity, safeguarding former employees’ entitlement.
Bombay High Court set aside a punishment order under Regulation 90 of MSEDCL, ruling that quashing the order reinstates the employee’s right to full gratuity and leave encashment. The court directed payment within six weeks of claim submission, emphasizing employer obligations under service law.
Bombay High Court rules that denying pension benefits to retired teachers on financial grounds, while granting them to similarly situated employees, constitutes hostile discrimination. The judgment mandates equal treatment under the Pension-Cum-Gratuity Scheme, reinforcing that administrative convenience cannot override constitutional equality.
Allahabad HC rules that rejecting a gratuity claim without affording the employee a hearing violates principles of natural justice. The court directed a post-decisional hearing to allow the petitioner to present legal arguments, emphasizing that statutory benefits cannot be denied arbitrarily even if initial grounds appear valid.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that public employers cannot delay payment of gratuity, leave encashment, or pending salary to retired employees due to financial constraints. The order mandates full payment within three months, with interest at bank rate if no specific provision exists, reinforcing that statutory benefits are non-negotiable rights, not discretionary payouts.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act does not automatically forfeit gratuity, leave encashment, or insurance dues. Authorities must decide on forfeiture within 45 days, failing which the amounts must be released with 6% interest, ensuring procedural fairness in service law.
Madras High Court rules that retirement benefits like gratuity, provident fund, and leave encashment are statutory entitlements that cannot be withheld due to pending audit findings or surcharge allegations post-retirement. The judgment reinforces that terminal dues must be disbursed immediately upon superannuation, irrespective of ongoing investigations, protecting retiring employees from administrative delays.
J&K and Ladakh High Court reinforces that parent organizations must pay gratuity while borrowing organizations are liable for leave encashment for deputed government servants. Reimbursement under J&K Civil Service Regulations is mandatory, with 10% interest on delayed gratuity and 6% on leave salary from petition filing. The ruling impacts financial liability distribution in deputation cases across public employment.
Rajasthan High Court rules that the Central Co-Operative Bank, as the entity issuing retirement orders and maintaining service records, remains statutorily liable for gratuity and leave encashment payments-irrespective of internal arrangements assigning liability to cooperative societies. The judgment reinforces that employer obligations under service law cannot be contractually delegated to avoid statutory benefits.
Rajasthan High Court rules that the Central Co-Operative Bank remains statutorily liable for gratuity and leave encashment payments to retired employees, even if internal arrangements shift liability to affiliated cooperatives. The judgment reinforces that retiral benefits cannot be evaded through administrative reallocations, directly impacting employer obligations under service law.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that pension and gratuity cannot be withheld solely due to a pending criminal case if no departmental proceedings were initiated before retirement. The judgment reinforces statutory pension rights under Rule 64, mandating disbursement within 120 days, and sets a precedent protecting retired government employees from arbitrary denial of retiral benefits.
Chhattisgarh High Court rules that retiral dues like leave encashment, gratuity, and provident fund are statutory entitlements under service law, and financial constraints cannot justify their withholding. The court directed payment of ₹14,10,544 and ₹48,540 within two months, with 6% interest, reinforcing public employers' obligation to prioritize statutory dues over administrative excuses.
Meghalaya High Court rules that an 11-month age discrepancy in service records cannot override entitlement to gratuity and terminal benefits after decades of unchallenged government service. Legal heirs of a retired employee are entitled to dues if the appointment was regular and no fraud was proven.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act automatically suspends entitlement to gratuity, leave encashment, and other retiral benefits until the criminal appeal is disposed of. The ruling impacts public servants facing corruption charges, reinforcing that financial benefits remain frozen pending appellate relief.
Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirms that retired employees are entitled to 18% interest on delayed gratuity payments, holding the State liable for compensating financial losses due to administrative delays. The ruling underscores the State’s obligation to disburse pensionary benefits within a reasonable timeframe, failing which interest at a penal rate becomes payable.