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.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
746In 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.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
The State's Responsibility as a Model Employer
Time and again, the Apex Court's advice to both Central and State Governments that the State should strive to be a model employer in labor matters goes unheeded due to the parochial attitude of high-ranking government officials. Particularly, the remnants of the colonial ruler's attitude are shamelessly exhibited by them towards the regularization of the services of contingent employees who have been on Nominal Muster Rolls for almost a lifetime, whether in government departments or quasi-government industrial organizations.
These officials have the audacity to misinterpret judgments favoring the regularization of individuals from the date of their entry as applicable only to the appellants of those particular cases and not to others. They conveniently forget that public administration is nothing but ideal governance based on good precedents and judicious priorities.
Bureaucratic Callousness in Pension Matters
To further explain the callousness of the bureaucracy, consider another example: if the appellants' services were pensionable and they demanded pension benefits based on the same judgment, the government would certainly reject the demand simply by claiming that the judgment covers the issue of gratuity only and would refuse to apply the ratio decidendi to other issues and others as well!
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
Time and again, the Apex Court's advice to both Central and State Governments that the State should strive to be a model employer in labor matters goes unheeded due to the parochial attitude of high-ranking government officials. Particularly, the remnants of the colonial ruler's attitude are shamelessly exhibited by them towards the regularization of the services of contingent employees who have been on Nominal Muster Rolls for almost a lifetime, whether in government departments or quasi-government industrial organizations.
These officials have the audacity to misinterpret judgments favoring the regularization of individuals from the date of their entry as applicable only to the appellants of those particular cases and not to others. They conveniently forget that public administration is nothing but ideal governance based on good precedents and judicious priorities.
Bureaucratic Callousness in Pension Matters
To further explain the callousness of the bureaucracy, consider another example: if the appellants' services were pensionable and they demanded pension benefits based on the same judgment, the government would certainly reject the demand simply by claiming that the judgment covers the issue of gratuity only and would refuse to apply the ratio decidendi to other issues and others as well!
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Gratuity- casual daily rated period to be considered.PDF
Gratuity Form I.doc