Revenue authorities must execute gratuity recovery certificates and deposit recovered amounts within eight weeks.

The petitioner, a retired Safai Kamdar who had served Damnagar Nagarpalika since 1982 and superannuated on 30 November 2023, was paid ₹4,68,909 towards gratuity, which she alleged was deficient

She applied to the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, seeking the balance gratuity with interest.

The Controlling Authority awarded her an additional ₹6,04,976 with interest at 10% per annum from 1 December 2023.

Damnagar Nagarpalika’s appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 31 January 2026.

As the amount remained unpaid, the Controlling Authority issued a Recovery Certificate dated 4 September 2025, which was forwarded by the Collector, Amreli, to the Mamlatdar and Taluka Executive Magistrate, Lathi, for recovery under the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

Notices were issued under Sections 152, 155 and 158 of the Code, but the amount was not recovered, leading the petitioner to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Collector and Mamlatdar to implement and enforce the Recovery Certificate issued under the Payment of Gratuity Act

Whether the revenue authorities’ failure to recover the adjudicated gratuity amount, despite the Recovery Certificate and initiation of proceedings under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, warranted judicial intervention

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a mandamus where a statutory authority failed to perform its legal duty.

Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, read with Rule 18 of the Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973, provides the mechanism for recovery of gratuity dues through a Recovery Certificate.

Sections 152, 155 and 158 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code were relied upon as the statutory provisions under which the revenue authorities initiated recovery proceedings.

The Court relied on Manager, V.J. Auto Engineering Works v. Sherkhan Ahmedkhan Khokhar, 2003(3) AIJEL-HC 207334, for the principle that the High Court may directly command the concerned statutory authority to implement a Recovery Certificate when there is inaction, without adjudicating the underlying merits again.

The Court found that the petitioner had already obtained a final determination in her favour from the Controlling Authority and that the Appellate Authority had dismissed the Nagarpalika’s appeal.

The Recovery Certificate dated 4 September 2025 had been duly forwarded to the Collector and thereafter to the Mamlatdar, and notices had been issued under the relevant provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code; nevertheless, the amount remained unpaid.

Applying the principle in V.J. Auto Engineering Works, the Court held that the present proceedings concerned only the revenue authorities’ failure to execute the Recovery Certificate and did not require reconsideration of the gratuity entitlement or the merits of the underlying orders.

The continued non-recovery, despite the statutory proceedings and the petitioner’s repeated correspondence, constituted sufficient inaction warranting a mandamus.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3—the Collector, Amreli, and the Mamlatdar and Taluka Executive Magistrate, Lathi—were directed to recover ₹6,04,976 together with interest at 10% per annum from 1 December 2023, in accordance with the Recovery Certificate dated 4 September 2025.

The recovery and deposit of the amount before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Amreli, were directed to be completed within eight weeks from receipt of the order.

Rule was made absolute to that extent.