Bombay High Court: The Petitioner-Zilla Parishad, Amravati challenged the judgment and order dated 3-12-2022 passed by the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’), directing the petitioner to pay the respondent gratuity of Rs 18,33,300 along with interest @10%p.a.
A Single Judge Bench of M.S. Jawalkar, J., stated that gratuity could not be withheld under Section 4(6) of the Act as no ingredient of Section 4(6)(a) were present and further opined that as per Section 4(6)(b), the gratuity might be fully or partially forfeited when the employee’s service was terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part or if the services of the employee had been terminated for any act which constituted an offence involving moral turpitude. The Court stated that since the respondent’s services were not terminated he was entitled for gratuity.
Background:
The respondent retired on 31-1-2020 but the petitioner withheld gratuity payments, citing disciplinary proceedings from 2014 where the respondent was accused of using inappropriate language towards his superiors.
The Controlling Authority directed the petitioner to pay Rs 18,33,300 as gratuity to the respondent. The petitioner challenged this decision and argued that the respondent’s case should be governed under the MCS Rules, particularly Rule 130, which permitted withholding of gratuity in the event of ongoing departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings. The petitioner also contended that since respondent was an employee of the Zilla Parishad, the Act was not applicable to him.
The respondent argued that in view of Section 14 of Act, the provisions of the Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than the Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than the Act.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court referred to Suresh Laxman Tikhile v. Municipal Council, Achalpur, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1150, and Municipal Council, Achalpur v. Anil Laxmanrao Pataskar, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 164, and opined that unless there was an exemption under Section 5 of the Act, the employees of the establishment would be governed by the Act to the extent of entitlement of gratuity was concerned.
The Court noted that the Departmental Inquiry was concluded and punishment of bringing the respondent on his original pay-scale was awarded. Further, one of the charges against the respondent was in respect of arrogance and filthy language used towards senior officers.
The Court stated that gratuity could not be withheld under Section 4(6) of the Act as no ingredient of Section 4(6)(a) were present. The Court also stated that the services were not terminated but punishment to bring the respondent into original pay-scale and grade pay was awarded and there was no case of damage or loss or destruction of property due to wilful omission or negligence of the employee.
Further, the Court opined that as per Section 4(6)(b), the gratuity might be fully or partially forfeited when the employee’s service was terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part or if the services of the employee had been terminated for any act which constituted an offence involving moral turpitude. The Court noted that his services were not terminated and the enquiry against him was already concluded, thus, he was entitled for gratuity as directed by the Controlling Authority.
The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Controlling Authority’s order and ordered the petitioner to release the gratuity amount of Rs 18,33,300 to the respondent.
[Zilla Parishad, Amravati v. Ganesh Gulabrao Nawale, Writ Petition No. 2596 of 2024, decided on 9-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Milind Rathi, Advocate
For the Respondent: C.D. Gawande, Advocate
