S.S.L.Jain Pg College Vidisha vs Babu Lal

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19482
1 WP-24108-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
rd
ON THE 3 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 24108 of 2026
S.S.L.JAIN PG COLLEGE VIDISHA
Versus
BABU LAL
Appearance:
Shri Narottam Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"7.1 That, order annexure P/1 dated 19.04.2025 and order Annexure
P/2 dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Learned court below may kindly be
quashed.
7.2 That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated
19.04.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the order dated
25.07.2022 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity
Act are contrary to the facts on record and settled principles of law and, therefore,
deserve to be quashed.
It is submitted that the respondent was employed as a Peon in the petitioner
College and rendered service from 01.07.1977 till his superannuation on
31.08.2019. During the course of his employment, the respondent was allotted a
residential accommodation by the petitioner institution for his use during the
tenure of his service. The said accommodation was provided solely by virtue of
his employment and the respondent had no independent right, title or interest
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/4/2026
12:14:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19482
2 WP-24108-2026
therein.

Learned counsel further submits that after attaining the age of
superannuation, the respondent was requested to hand over vacant possession of
the allotted accommodation and to furnish a No Objection Certificate (NOC) so
that his retiral benefits, including gratuity, could be processed in accordance with
the applicable rules and procedure. However, despite repeated requests, the
respondent failed to vacate the premises and deliberately withheld the NOC while
continuing in unauthorized occupation of the accommodation belonging to the
petitioner.
It is submitted that instead of complying with his obligations, the
respondent preferred an application under Section 10 of the Payment of Gratuity
Act before the Controlling Authority claiming release of gratuity. The petitioner
duly appeared before the said authority and filed a detailed written statement
raising all relevant factual and legal objections. The petitioner specifically pleaded
that the respondent was continuing in unauthorized occupation of the residential
accommodation belonging to the petitioner institution and had suppressed material
facts regarding the ownership and nature of the accommodation.
Learned counsel contends that the Controlling Authority, without properly
appreciating the pleadings and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner,
proceeded to allow the application by order dated 25.07.2022. The authority failed
to consider that the land on which the residential quarters stand had been leased by
the State Government in favour of the petitioner society and such lease has been
renewed from time to time. It is further submitted that the residential quarters were
constructed by the petitioner institution itself, as is evident from the documents
placed on record, including Annexure P/3. Thus, the respondent's claim that the
accommodation did not belong to the petitioner is wholly incorrect and amounts
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/4/2026
12:14:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19482
3 WP-24108-2026
to suppression of material facts.

It is further submitted that, being aggrieved by the order of the Controlling
Authority, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate
Authority, registered as Gratuity Appeal No. 138/2022. However, the Appellate
Authority, by the impugned order dated 19.04.2025, dismissed the appeal without
properly considering the specific grounds urged by the petitioner or examining the
documentary evidence available on record. The Appellate Authority merely
affirmed the findings of the Controlling Authority without assigning cogent
reasons or dealing with the substantial issues raised in appeal.
Learned counsel submits that both the authorities have failed to exercise
their jurisdiction in accordance with law and have passed the impugned orders in a
mechanical manner, ignoring the material evidence placed by the petitioner. The
findings recorded by the authorities suffer from non-consideration of relevant
facts, misappreciation of evidence and are consequently arbitrary and
unsustainable in law. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court, in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may be
pleased to quash the impugned order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the Appellate
Authority as well as the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Controlling
Authority.
Having considered the submissions and perused the material on record, it is
evident that the admitted position between the parties is that the residential
accommodation was allotted to the respondent only during the course of
employment and his right to occupy the same came to an end upon
superannuation. The dispute essentially relates to the withholding of gratuity on
the ground of continued occupation of employer’s premises.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/4/2026
12:14:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19482
4 WP-24108-2026
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a beneficial legislation intended to

secure post-retiral financial security to employees. The right to gratuity accrues
upon termination of employment on superannuation or otherwise, and the
circumstances in which gratuity can be withheld or forfeited are strictly
circumscribed by Section 4(6) of the Act. A plain reading of Section 4(6) makes it
clear that forfeiture of gratuity, either wholly or partially, is permissible only in
cases where the employee’s services have been terminated for any act of wilful
omission or negligence causing damage or loss to the employer’s property, or for
riotous or disorderly conduct or acts of violence, or for offences involving moral
turpitude committed in the course of employment.
The continued occupation of residential accommodation after retirement,
even if unauthorized, does not fall within the contingencies enumerated under
Section 4(6) of the Act so as to justify withholding or forfeiture of gratuity. The
statute does not provide any independent power to an employer to withhold
gratuity on equitable considerations or on the ground of subsisting disputes
relating to occupation of quarters. Any such withholding would be contrary to the
statutory scheme.
In the present case, the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate
Authority have concurrently found that the respondent was entitled to gratuity
under the provisions of the Act and there was no legally sustainable ground
available to the petitioner institution to withhold the same. The appellate authority
has also considered the grounds raised and affirmed the findings recorded by the
Controlling Authority. The orders impugned cannot be said to suffer from any
jurisdictional error, perversity, or non-consideration of relevant material
warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/4/2026
12:14:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19482
5 WP-24108-2026
At the same time, it is clarified that any dispute relating to unauthorized

occupation of the residential accommodation or recovery of damages/mesne
profits on account of such occupation is independent of the claim of gratuity and
the petitioner institution is at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedies
available under law before the competent forum in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any illegality in
the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Controlling Authority or the
order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority. Both the orders are
based on correct appreciation of law and do not call for interference.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/4/2026
12:14:29 PM