High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition is disposed of with directions fo...

P.M. John v State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 20966 OF 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date
2023-05-22
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed of. The petitioner not entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act because he is a post under the Government, but is entitled to interest on the belated DCRG payment at 6% per annum from 30.06.2006 to 07.12.2011; payment directed within two months of judgment.
Final Disposition
Writ petition is disposed of with directions for payment of interest within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • P.M. John

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
  • The Principal Secretary Housing (A) Department, State of Kerala, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
  • The Housing Commissioner and Ex-officio Secretary, Kerala State Housing Board, Shanti Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi (Addl. R4 impleaded as per order dated 1.2.12 in IA.1385/12)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. James Kurian

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri.C.N Prabhakaran, Government Pleader
  • • Sri.George Boban, SC, K.S.H.B.
  • • Sri.Poovappally M.Ramachandran Nair, SC, K.S.H.B.
  • • Sri.K.Denny Devassy, SC, K.S.H.B.
  • • Sri.Manoj Ramaswamy, SC, K.S.H.B.
  • • Sri.T.K.Sajeev, SC, KSHB

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the denial and delayed disbursement of DCRG under section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, as amended by Act 15 of 2010, for the petitioner, who served as Housing Commissioner and Ex-officio Secretary of the Kerala State Housing Board (KSHB). The petitioner’s service included two stints, the latter ending with suspension under Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960, in contemplation of a vigilance inquiry. Though the government had sanctioned pension and DCRG in 2006, the DCRG was not released due to pendency of the vigilance inquiry, and the matter involved the due amount and entitlement under the amended Act. The State contends that the petitioner, as a post-holder under the State Government, is excluded from the Payment of Gratuity Act, and that the KSHB pension framework governs his retirement benefits. The Court notes the petitioner’s suspension was regularised later and that Rs.3,30,000 was eventually disbursed in 2011. While the petitioner is not entitled to gratuity under the Act due to his status, the Court holds that he is entitled to interest on the belated DCRG payment, applying precedents such as State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, State of U.P. v. Dhirendra Pal Singh, and D.D. Tewari. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to pay 6% interest from 30.06.2006 to 07.12.2011 within two months of the judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960, Rule 10Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, s. 4(3)Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, s. 2(e)Kerala State Housing Board Act, 1971 (Section 4)Kerala State Housing Board Employees Service Regulations, 1984Kerala State Housing Board Employees' Pension and other Retirement Benefits Regulations, 1990Kerala Service Rules

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends entitlement to DCRG under section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act as amended in 2010, arguing that his 28 years and 4 months of service warrant a gratuity of Rs.10,00,000 under the amended Act. He also asserts that delay in payment was due to pendency of vigilance proceedings and the regularisation of suspension, and seeks interest on the belated payment. The government’s counter argues that the petitioner, as a post under the State Government, is excluded from the Act’s purview, and that the DCRG was governed by pension rules and KSHB regulations; the delay was due to administrative processes and vigilance proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that since the petitioner held a government post, he is not an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act and thus not entitled to gratuity under s.4(3). They contend that the amount disbursed was in line with statutory and pension rules, and that any delay does not attract gratuity under the Act, though interest for belated payment may be warranted given the interim orders and regularisation of suspension.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair(1985) 1 SCC 429PositiveSupports awarding interest on belated payment of retirement benefits.
State of U.P and others v. Dhirendra Pal Singh(2017) 1 SCC 49PositiveAuthority for interest on belated gratuity-related payments.
D.D. Tewari (dead) through legal representatives Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others(2014) 8 SCC 894PositivePrinciple on belated payment of retirement benefits and interest.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P.M. John v State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 20966 OF 2011`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ## **`P.M.JOHN`** ``` HOUSING COMMISSIONER AND EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, (RETIRED), RESIDING AT D6-PILLA VEEDU NAGAR, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.JAMES KURIAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001`** - **`2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOUSING (A) DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA,, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001`** - **`3 THE HOUSING COMMISSIONER AND EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,SHANTI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001`** - **`*4 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI. (ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 1.2.12 IN IA.NO.1385/12)`** ## **`BY ADVS.`** ``` SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.N PRABHAKARAN SRI.GEORGE BOBAN, SC, K.S.H.B. SRI.POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,SC.KSHB SRI.K.DENNY DEVASSY, SC, K.S.H.B. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY, SC, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD SRI.T.K.SAJEEV,SC, KSHB ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` :2: ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner was holding the post of Housing Commissioner and Ex-officio Secretary of the Kerala State Housing Board (for short, 'the Board') during the period from 04.12.1991 to 02.08.1996 and from 01.06.2001 to 30.06.2006. While the petitioner was working as the Secretary of the Board during the second spell and few days before his superannuation, he was placed under suspension by the Government in accordance with Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960, by Ext.P1 order dated 26.06.2006 in contemplation of a vigilance enquiry. Against Ext.P1 order of suspension, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.16949/2006 and this Court, by Ext.P2 order dated 30.06.2006, stayed Ext.P1 and he rejoined service on 30.06.2006 and retired on the same day. On the basis of the recommendation of the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, the Government, by Ext.P3 dated WP(C)20966-2011 :3: 07.06.2011, decided to drop further action against the petitioner. Though the Government had, by order dated 23.05.2006, sanctioned full pension and Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) to the petitioner, the DCRG was not released to him due to the pendency of vigilance enquiry. 2. The petitioner states that the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs) as per Amendment Act 15 of 2010 dated 17.05.2010 and the petitioner has put in 28 years and 4 months qualifying service under the Government. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for direction to the respondents to disburse the DCRG due to him as provided under section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as amended by Act 15 of 2010, with interest. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Principal Secretary, Department of Housing, Government of Kerala, the 2[nd] respondent, stating that since the period of :4: suspension of the petitioner had to be regularised, there was delay in disbursing the DCRG and the DCRG of Rs.3,30,000/was disbursed to him as per order dated 07.12.2011. It is further contended that the petitioner is not entitled to get the DCRG as per the amendment introduced to section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act since the petitioner was sanctioned DCRG prior to the said amendment vide order dated 23.05.2006. 4. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 02.08.2011 and this Court, by order dated 03.11.2011, directed the 2[nd] respondent to disburse the admitted amount of DCRG to the petitioner within one month. From the counter affidavit, it is seen that the revised admitted DCRG of Rs.3,30,000/- was disbursed to the petitioner by order dated 07.12.2011. 5. The contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is entitled to DCRG as per section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act as amended by Act 15 of 2010 whereby the amount of gratuity payable to an employee has been enhanced WP(C)20966-2011 :5: to Rs.10,00,000/- and since the petitioner has put in more than 28 years of service, he is entitled for Rs.10,00,000/- as DCRG. 6. Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act defines an employee and reads thus:- “ 2(e) : "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity.” Thus, section 2(e) excludes persons who hold posts under the Central Government or a State Government. The petitioner was holding the post of Housing Commissioner and Ex-officio Secretary of the Board during the periods mentioned above. Section 4 of the Kerala State Housing Board Act, 1971 deals with the constitution of the Board and provides that the Board shall consists of a Chairman and other members referred to therein which includes Housing Commissioner to the WP(C)20966-2011 :6: Government, Ex-officio, who shall also be the Secretary of the Board. Thus, the Secretary of the Housing Board is holding post under the State Government. The Kerala State Housing Board (Employees Service) Regulations, 1984 applies only to officers and servants of the Board. The Kerala State Housing Board Employees' (Pension and other Retirement Benefits) Regulations, 1990 applies to employees of the Board to whom the Kerala State Housing Board (Employees Service) Regulations, 1984 applies. The petitioner, being a person holding the post of Housing Commissioner under the Government, was placed under suspension by the Government invoking the provisions under Rule 10 of the KCS (CC & A) Rules and the payment of pension is regulated by the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules. Since the petitioner was a person holding post under the Government, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 excludes him from the provisions of the said Act and he cannot claim gratuity under section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. However, since there was delay in disbursing WP(C)20966-2011 :7: DCRG due to the petitioner, he is entitled to interest for the belated payment in the light of the decisions in **State of Kerala and others** v. **M. Padmanabhan Nair [(1985) 1 SCC 429], State of U.P and others** v. **Dhirendra Pal Singh [(2017) 1 SCC 49]** and **D.D. Tewari (dead) through legal** v. **representatives Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others [(2014) 8 SCC 894].** The ground raised in the counter affidavit for the delay in disbursement of DCRG is the pendency of vigilance enquiry which concluded with the recommendation to drop further action in the matter. Yet another ground raised is the time taken to regularise the period of suspension of four days, which was regularised by order dated 26.11.2011. The DCRG was released by order dated 07.12.2011, pursuant to interim order of this Court dated 03.11.2011. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the DCRG amount of Rs.3,30,000/- at the rate of 6% per annum from respondents 1 and 2 for the period from 30.06.2006 to 07.12.2011. This shall be paid WP(C)20966-2011 :8: within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** spc/ WP(C)20966-2011 :9: ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.06.2006 SUSPENDING THE PETITIONER ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2COPY OF THE ORDER IN WRIT PETITION NO.16949/2006 DATED 30.06.2006 EXHIBIT P3COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 07.06.2011 OF 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.07.2006 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5COPY OF THE NON-LIABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE HOUSING COMMISSIONER OFFICE ON 01.07.2006 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P6COPY OF THE NON-LIABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KSHB EXHIBIT P7COPY OF THE BOARDS DECISION EXHIBIT P8COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT ```