Employees governed by specific service rules providing for gratuity are excluded from the Payment of Gratuity Act.

The Applicant joined the Central Silk Board (CSB) as a Lower Division Clerk on 29.10.1982 and retired as Assistant Director on 28.02.2018

Upon retirement, his gratuity was computed and paid under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972

In December 2024, the Applicant submitted a representation seeking re-computation of his gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (PG Act), arguing it offered more beneficial terms, including the consideration of entire continuous service without the 33-year cap

The Respondents rejected this request on 22.01.2025, asserting that CSB employees are governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules via the Central Silk Board Rules, 1955

The Applicant challenged this rejection, contending that the PG Act has an overriding effect under Section 14

1. Whether an employee of the Central Silk Board, functioning under the administrative control of the Ministry of Textiles, is covered by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

2. Whether the Applicant is barred by the principles of estoppel and limitation from claiming benefits under the PG Act after accepting retirement benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules without protest in 2018

Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which defines "employee" but excludes persons holding posts under the Central or State Government who are governed by any other Act or rules providing for gratuity

Supreme Court’s decision in N. Manoharan v. The Administrative Officer (2026 Livelaw (SC) 137), which clarified that the exclusionary limb of Section 2(e) strictly removes such classes from the PG Act’s ambit

Rule 28A of the Central Silk Board Rules, 1955, which mandates that CSB employees be entitled to pension and gratuity at rates prescribed by the Central Government's Liberalised Pension Rules (CCS Pension Rules)

The Tribunal found that the CSB is a statutory body under the strict control of the Union Government per Sections 2 and 11 of the Central Silk Board Act, 1948

Under Rule 28A of the CSB Rules, the Board specifically adopted the Central Government's pension and gratuity framework for its staff

Applying the ratio of N. Manoharan, the Tribunal reasoned that since the Applicant is governed by a separate set of statutory rules (CCS Pension Rules) for gratuity, he falls squarely within the "exclusionary limb" of the definition of "employee" under Section 2(e) of the PG Act

Consequently, the overriding effect of Section 14 of the PG Act cannot be invoked because the Act itself does not apply to him

The Tribunal also noted that the Applicant retired in 2018 and accepted his benefits without demur; therefore, the claim filed in 2025 is barred by delay, laches, and Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The Tribunal further held that the application was barred by limitation and the principle of estoppel

The Original Application was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made