T.VIJAY BHASKAR GOUD Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act and not allowing the encashment of leave benefits after the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to release the gratuity as well as the cash equivalent of accumulated earned leave with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e., 30/12/2020 till the date of payment and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of the justice.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Technical Work Inspector on NMR basis on 3/5/1988 and continuously worked up to December 1993. Subsequently, his services were terminated without following the last-in-first out rule as well as the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.3088 of 1993 before this Court and this Court in W.P.M.P.No.17930 of 1994 issued interim directions. However, when new persons were appointed without considering the case of the petitioner and others, they filed C.C.No.257 of 1995 and this Court vide dtd. 5/9/1995, directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner and others as Work Inspectors in the said vacancies. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as Work Inspector again on 20/9/1995 and has been working continuously since then. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in December 2020 and initially he was given an extension of service for another six months vide Memo dtd. 5/2/2021 and thereafter, his service was not extended beyond 19/2/2021. It is submitted that on 27/1/2017, the Managing Committee of the respondent No.2 Society has resolved to extend gratuity as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act to persons who have put in more than ten years of continuous service as on 27/1/2017, vide Proceedings No.E3/938/TSEWIDC, dtd. 4/7/2017. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 30/6/2021 to make the payment of the Gratuity and also to permit him the leave encashment as he has discharged thirty two years of service in the said Corporation. When there was no response from the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Reiterating the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to the respondent organization and since no exemption has been granted from the applicability of the said Act, the petitioner, who has put in more than thirty two years of service, is eligible for the gratuity. It is submitted that as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, an employee who has completed five years of service in an organization becomes eligible for gratuity. It is submitted that gratuity is a statutory right of an employee to receive terminal benefits on completion of a minimum period of five years under the same employer and the employer must arrange to pay the gratuity within thirty days on the date of superannuation of the employee. It is submitted that if employee's gratuity is not settled within thirty days, then simple interest would have to be paid by the employer under Sub Clause 4 of Sec. 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act.