Government’s 306-Day Appeal Delay Leaves CPWD Worker’s ₹2.93 Lakh Muster-Roll Gratuity Award Undisturbed: P&H HC

Respondent Prem Chand worked for the CPWD on a muster-roll basis from 10 September 1984 until his services were regularized on 16 April 1993.

After retiring in 2023, he received retirement gratuity for his regular service under the Central Civil Services Pension Rules and claimed separate gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for his muster-roll service.

The Controlling Authority ordered payment of ₹2,93,448 with interest, calculating the amount by reference to his wages at retirement.

The Union’s statutory appeal, filed on 17 February 2026, was returned by the Appellate Authority on grounds of limitation and non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement.

The Union then challenged the orders of both authorities under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 allows an appeal within 60 days of receipt of the Controlling Authority’s order and permits a further extension of up to 60 days for sufficient cause; the resulting 120-day period is the statutory outer limit.

The Appellate Authority cannot extend that limit by applying the Limitation Act, 1963.

In The Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and others, LPA-1000-2021 (O&M), decided 7 December 2022, a Division Bench of the High Court held that the Limitation Act cannot enlarge the appeal period beyond the limit set by Section 7(7).

Further, the second proviso to Section 7(7) bars admission of an employer’s appeal unless the employer produces the Controlling Authority’s certificate confirming deposit of the gratuity amount or deposits that amount with the Appellate Authority.

The Union’s appeal recorded receipt of the Controlling Authority’s order on 17 April 2025. Even using that date, the appeal filed on 17 February 2026 was 306 days later—well beyond the 120-day statutory maximum.

The administrative steps cited to explain the delay could not confer jurisdiction to extend that limit.

The Union had also neither produced the required deposit certificate nor deposited the gratuity amount when filing the appeal.

Although it challenged the calculation of gratuity, including the use of its employee’s 2023 wages and the treatment of muster-roll service, those merits could not be considered in an appeal that was time-barred.

The Court found no jurisdictional error or procedural illegality warranting intervention under Articles 226/227.

It declined to interfere with the Appellate Authority’s order dated 10 March 2026 and dismissed the writ petition; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.