Case Recitation on Gratuity
In a relief to daily wage-earners who become regularized, the Supreme Court has ruled that such employees are entitled to gratuity for the entire period of service, not just from the day of regularization, as is the case now. The only requirement is that they must have been in service continuously.
A bench of Justices R K Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre quashed the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had held that gratuity was to be decided based on the tenure of service in a regular job, and the period of daily wage earning was not to be considered. The High Court had dismissed a plea from a state government employee, Netram Sahu, who had worked continuously for around 22 years as a daily wager before his job was regularized, and he worked for another 3 years before retirement.
The state government argued that the employee, working with the water resources department, could not be held eligible to claim gratuity because, out of the total period of 25 years of his service, he worked 22 years as a daily wager and only 3 years as a regular employee. It urged that he could not be said to have worked continuously for a period of 5 years as provided under the Act to make him eligible to claim gratuity. The High Court agreed with the submission of the state government and refused to grant relief to the employee. He moved the Supreme Court through his advocate Anshuman Srivastava, challenging the High Court's decision.
After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court stated that the High Court erred in deciding the case against Sahu and quashed the verdict. "We do not agree with the submission of the state for more than one reason. First, the appellant has actually rendered service for a period of 25 years. Second, the state actually regularized his services by passing the order. Third, having regularized the services, the appellant became entitled to claim its benefit for counting the period of 22 years regardless of the post and the capacity on which he worked for 22 years. Fourth, no provision under the Act was brought to our notice which disentitled him from claiming the gratuity, nor any provision was brought to our notice which prohibits him from taking benefit of his continuous period of 22 years of service, which he rendered prior to his regularization for calculating his continuous service of 5 years," the bench said.
In a relief to daily wage-earners who become regularized, the Supreme Court has ruled that such employees are entitled to gratuity for the entire period of service, not just from the day of regularization, as is the case now. The only requirement is that they must have been in service continuously.
A bench of Justices R K Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre quashed the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had held that gratuity was to be decided based on the tenure of service in a regular job, and the period of daily wage earning was not to be considered. The High Court had dismissed a plea from a state government employee, Netram Sahu, who had worked continuously for around 22 years as a daily wager before his job was regularized, and he worked for another 3 years before retirement.
The state government argued that the employee, working with the water resources department, could not be held eligible to claim gratuity because, out of the total period of 25 years of his service, he worked 22 years as a daily wager and only 3 years as a regular employee. It urged that he could not be said to have worked continuously for a period of 5 years as provided under the Act to make him eligible to claim gratuity. The High Court agreed with the submission of the state government and refused to grant relief to the employee. He moved the Supreme Court through his advocate Anshuman Srivastava, challenging the High Court's decision.
After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court stated that the High Court erred in deciding the case against Sahu and quashed the verdict. "We do not agree with the submission of the state for more than one reason. First, the appellant has actually rendered service for a period of 25 years. Second, the state actually regularized his services by passing the order. Third, having regularized the services, the appellant became entitled to claim its benefit for counting the period of 22 years regardless of the post and the capacity on which he worked for 22 years. Fourth, no provision under the Act was brought to our notice which disentitled him from claiming the gratuity, nor any provision was brought to our notice which prohibits him from taking benefit of his continuous period of 22 years of service, which he rendered prior to his regularization for calculating his continuous service of 5 years," the bench said.