Non-compliance with judicial orders for gratuity payment warrants disciplinary action against officials under the Official Duties Act.

The Petitioners, former employees of Respondent No. 3 (a Municipal Corporation), retired between 2004 and 2018.

Upon retirement, they were paid only a portion of their entitled gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The Controlling Authority issued orders on January 19, 2022, directing Respondent No. 3 to pay the balance amounts with 10% interest.

Recovery Certificates were subsequently issued on July 4, 2024.

Respondent No. 3 challenged these orders through various Writ Petitions, which were dismissed by the High Court on October 22, 2024, with a direction to pay the amounts within four months.

Despite the lapse of the four-month period, Respondent No. 3 failed to release the payments.

The Petitioners filed the present petitions seeking recovery of the dues and the initiation of disciplinary action against the officials for the delay.

1. Whether the Respondents are liable for disciplinary action under Section 10 of the Official Duties Act for willful negligence and delay in discharging their official duties regarding the payment of gratuity.

2. Whether the Court should grant a final peremptory timeline for compliance before authorizing disciplinary proceedings.

The Court primarily applied Section 10 of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (“Official Duties Act”), which mandates that government servants discharge duties diligently and expeditiously, stipulating that files should generally not remain pending for more than seven working days.

Section 10(2) specifically provides that intentional delay or negligence amounts to dereliction of duty, making the servant liable for disciplinary action under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.

The Court also upheld the statutory right to timely payment under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The Court observed that despite clear orders from the Controlling Authority dating back to 2022 and a subsequent confirmation by the High Court in October 2024, the Respondents failed to comply even after being granted a specific four-month grace period.

By applying Section 10 of the Official Duties Act, the Court reasoned that the statutory framework imposes a binding obligation on officials to process files within designated timeframes—specifically seven days for internal processing and up to 45 days for final decisions.

The Court found the persistent non-compliance and the deprivation of the Petitioners' legal dues to be a prima facie case of gross negligence.

While the Court noted that the conduct warranted immediate disciplinary measures, it exercised judicial restraint by granting a final 15-day window for compliance to balance the administrative exigencies requested by the AGP.

The Court directed the Respondents to comply with the Controlling Authority’s orders (as confirmed by the High Court) within 15 days of the production of the order.

It explicitly ordered that if the Respondents fail to comply within this period, action must be initiated against them under Section 10(2) of the Official Duties Act.

The Writ Petitions were disposed of with a direction to list the matter on April 29, 2026, for reporting compliance.