Facts
The petitioner retired as Company Secretary of the Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. on 31 August 2017, but his retiral dues, including gratuity, were withheld.
Source reference: para. 3In an earlier writ petition, the High Court declared the withholding of gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance and other monetary benefits illegal and directed their release; the Supreme Court dismissed the Corporation’s SLP against that judgment.
Source reference: paras. 3–4After a subsequent writ petition granted him liberty to seek the remaining dues by representation, the petitioner’s representation was rejected.
Source reference: paras. 5–6In the present petition, he pressed only his claims for interest on gratuity and on delayed payment of other retiral dues; he did not press his remaining claims.
Source reference: paras. 7–8Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on gratuity withheld after it became payable upon retirement.
Source reference: paras. 9–132. Whether, and at what rate, the petitioner was entitled to interest on delayed payment of leave encashment and other retiral dues.
Source reference: paras. 9, 12–13Law Applied
Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, read with the Central Government Notification dated 1 October 1987, provides for simple interest at 10% per annum where gratuity is not paid within the specified time.
Source reference: paras. 10, 13The Court applied the principle that interest is payable from the date an amount becomes due.
Source reference: para. 12It also relied on the earlier judgment in the petitioner’s case, which declared the Corporation’s withholding of his retiral benefits illegal; that judgment had been affirmed when the Supreme Court dismissed the Corporation’s SLP.
Source reference: paras. 3–4, 12–13Reasoning
The earlier judgment established that the Corporation had unlawfully withheld the petitioner’s retiral benefits, and its dismissal in the Supreme Court left that determination undisturbed.
Source reference: paras. 12–13As the petitioner had retired on 31 August 2017 and the delay was not attributed to him, the Court held that interest on gratuity ran from that date at the statutory-notified rate of 10% per annum.
Source reference: paras. 9, 12–13Applying the principle that interest follows when payment is delayed beyond the date it is due, the Court also awarded 6% simple interest per annum on the other delayed dues from 31 August 2017.
Source reference: paras. 9, 12–13Holding
The Court directed the respondents to pay simple interest on the petitioner’s gratuity at 10% per annum from 31 August 2017, and simple interest on his other retiral dues at 6% per annum from the same date.
The reliefs the petitioner did not press were dismissed, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Source reference: paras. 7–8, 14Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 19721
Original Court PDF
RAJESH KUMAR NIGAMvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
