Dismissal of challenge to gratuity award based on smallness of the amount involved.

The respondent was a Clerk in the petitioner Municipality, having served from February 15, 1991, until his retirement on July 31, 2024

A dispute arose regarding the calculation of his gratuity; the petitioner claimed his regular service began only in 1995, whereas the respondent claimed credit for 33 years of service

The Controlling Authority, Rajkot, ordered the petitioner to pay a deficit of ₹67,933/- with 10% interest

This order was upheld by the Appellate Authority on August 5, 2025

The petitioner challenged these orders via the present Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower authorities when the disputed amount is nominal

The Court's decision was guided by the principle of judicial restraint regarding the "smallness of amount" in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

While the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, governed the underlying dispute

the court applied the discretionary principle that high courts may decline to entertain petitions where the financial stakes are too low to justify the expenditure of judicial time and resources, regardless of the merits

The Court declined to examine the merits of the petitioner's arguments regarding the respondent's initial contractual appointment or the exact calculation of service years

Instead, the Court focused on the quantum of the award, noting that the total amount involved was only ₹67,933/-

The Court reasoned that given the "smallness of amount," it was not a fit case for the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227

To prevent this exercise of discretion from affecting future litigation involving larger sums or different legal questions, the Court specifically clarified that this decision would not be treated as a precedent for other matters

The petitioner-Municipality was directed to deposit the awarded gratuity amount and ensure its disbursement to the respondent-workman via RTGS/NEFT within eight weeks from the receipt of the order

No order as to costs was made