Authorities must decide the fresh gratuity representation expeditiously in light of the Division Bench ruling.

The seven petitioners, former gang labourers associated with the Public Works Department, sought directions for payment of gratuity and interest on delayed payment of gratuity.

They submitted that their claims were covered by the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in WA No. 378 of 2016 and connected matters.

During the hearing, the petitioners restricted their request to a direction requiring the competent authorities to consider and decide their representation in light of that Division Bench decision.

The State raised no objection to the limited relief sought.

Whether the petitioners should be permitted to submit a fresh representation seeking gratuity and interest on delayed gratuity, with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide it in accordance with law and the Division Bench decision in WA No. 378 of 2016 and connected matters.

Whether the High Court should itself adjudicate the petitioners’ entitlement to gratuity at this stage, or instead direct the competent authorities to consider the claim first.

The Court applied the procedural principle that where a petitioner seeks consideration of a pending or proposed representation and the State has no objection, the writ petition may be disposed of by directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law.

The Court further directed that the authorities must keep in view the binding or relevant principles laid down by the Division Bench in WA No. 378 of 2016 and connected matters, particularly in relation to the petitioners’ claim for gratuity.

The order did not independently determine the substantive entitlement to gratuity or interest.

The petitioners relied on the Division Bench decision and sought only administrative consideration of their claim rather than an immediate adjudication or direction for payment.

Since the State did not oppose this limited relief, the Court considered it appropriate to permit the petitioners to submit a fresh representation along with supporting documents.

The Court preserved the respondents’ authority to examine the claim in accordance with law, while requiring them to consider the earlier Division Bench decision and decide the representation expeditiously.

The petitioners were permitted to submit a fresh representation before the concerned respondent authorities with all supporting documents.

The authorities were directed to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, keeping in mind WA No. 378 of 2016 and connected matters, preferably within three months from receipt of the Court’s order.