Housing Board must consider retirees’ gratuity-arrears representations under Rule 248-A within two months.

The petitioners, former daily-wage employees of the Karnataka Housing Board whose services were later regularized, retired between 2017 and 2022.

They alleged that gratuity for their service before regularization remained unpaid, and sought payment under Rule 248-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958.

They had submitted representations to the respondents, which had not been considered, and filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The respondents submitted that the petitioners’ arrears of gratuity had been settled under Rule 248-A.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioners’ representations seeking arrears of gratuity.

Whether the Court should determine the petitioners’ entitlement to arrears of gratuity under Rule 248-A on the merits.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

Rule 248-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 was cited by the petitioners as the basis for their claim and by the respondents in their submission that the arrears had been settled.

The Court did not interpret or apply Rule 248-A to decide entitlement, and cited no precedent; it directed the competent respondent to consider the representations in accordance with law.

The Court noted both the petitioners’ claim that pre-regularization gratuity remained unpaid and the respondents’ submission that arrears had been settled.

Because the representations had not been considered, the Court directed the second respondent to decide them in accordance with law, while expressly declining to express an opinion on the merits of the claim.

Thus, the Court did not resolve whether the petitioners were entitled to further gratuity.

The Court granted no determination on the merits of the gratuity claim.