Summary
The Supreme Court restored gratuity awarded to a State employee whose twenty-five years and three months of continuous service included twenty-two years as a daily wager before regularisation. Once his services had actually been regularised, the preceding continuous service could not be excluded merely because it was daily-wage service. Umadevi did not justify denying this statutory benefit in an already regularised case. The State was directed to pay the assessed gratuity within three months and costs of Rs 25,000.
Issues
- Whether continuous daily-wage service preceding actual regularisation counted for gratuity.
- Whether Umadevi justified denying gratuity despite the completed regularisation.
Held
- The total continuous service and subsequent regularisation before retirement were undisputed. No statutory provision excluding the preceding daily-wage period was identified. That period counted towards the qualifying continuous service for gratuity; the employee had proved the required continuity. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 16, 17)
- The case concerned gratuity after actual regularisation, rather than a claim for an order regularising employment. Reliance on Umadevi to exclude the earlier service was misplaced. The date from which regularisation operated did not justify truncating the continuous service used for this gratuity claim. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- The Payment of Gratuity Act is welfare legislation and the employee’s established entitlement should have been paid voluntarily. The High Court orders were set aside and the controlling and appellate authorities’ orders restored, with Rs 25,000 costs payable by the State along with gratuity. The assessed gratuity was to be released within three months. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
Result
Appeal allowed. Gratuity authorities’ orders restored; State directed to pay assessed gratuity within three months and Rs 25,000 costs with that payment.