High Court Karnataka High Court

A S Kale vs Karnataka Food And Civil Supplies … on 17 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
A S Kale vs Karnataka Food And Civil Supplies … on 17 June, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
mm uuulu or mumnmm n-non COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH couau or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH <

  
   

3»: THE I-fi=i.'.':'rH cczum' OF KARHATAKA AT =H  H 
DATED THIS THE 15% DAY OF JUNE 

BEFCFRE

THE HON'BI.-E Mr. .JUsTzc§:_ %  

 

BETWEEN:

&.S.Kale,

Aged about 59 

&n sf late Sri 

Rja Phat 139,105,  '  
Aahimrad Bufldfiflg.       
RamtM'th Hagar, 3

   ' --.PmI'IoNER

can 
     Supplim
C-3fl.H:ce§'atiaoi11..,Li3:niteaE, '

   Bed Area,

  _B'e1ngzaJnr="e.-:$-60 052. ...RESPC}NI3ENT

 , Adv. for Ste: Range Asstm, Adm.)

 

  is filed under Articles 225 and 227 of tin
Coruafimfian of India pragrlzm to dime: thc rmpondem to

 _  the g-atnity, leave salary and group smw
  insurance amount fizz-thwith, without makiq any
  c1»;::iuc$4icn,sfxwe:mverie.a, along with ir1tc1'eat at H96 per


'§'%s'W.Pcuu:ningue:2i5oa'prel31nina1'3r11;mri11gi11'B'
G1-«mp this -day, tlm Court: mad¢ time fcallowim:



031133
The petitioner  the services 

reapoxadant Company 'm February 19'?'4 in  

Graduate ..*51ss'at.az1t. Over 3   I "= 

3£a"Vi-06:, ht: was pmmateci to  acg£L6.f1a"<3_I'

Mamger 3m the year 1931   
pa'om=*¢:s.ad as District   be a
mm-am Manager  an attaining
wpermaafian W cm of the
petitinner is;    all these
periods;  The pet:iti:oner

was .Ra.11,520[- arid a sum of

Ra..'i7G2'§";"'*-.V Allewancc. Thus his total

 -am12s.1s,s47;--. The mum; which in
   *3 R~s.3,21,oo6/-. The petilionaar aubmim

  entithd far 3 sum of Ra.1,5o,ocvo,r- and
   me: leave mm and mm sum of Rs.20,956/-
   zmm-gym. Thus, auzxzxar-ding to him, the mm

.  famomit payable by the wapondcmt on he attanmzg' '

aupem%a®»n is Ra.5,D5,CK}O/-. The  of the

C

IIGH COURT OF KAIINATAKA HIGH  OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C

petiticmcr is that notwitlmtandim putting in his paperafl

2,'



ma:-s COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH cgunt or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH c

fax pagyrmcnt ofgatuity af Rs.3,21,006f-, the seam: has

mt 'been paid. Ga the contrary, a  is

isaued, 2: copy: of which is produced 
aauaame 3% Due Certificate f1:*<;m;j_'r..1'=.¢i    

was w9rk1ng' as well as     

in rapes: znf    the
same is not   itV'n complied, hi
papcra  to    be proceaaed.

Cuum  . 

  'El'§;€1'.£ir1slnnVV;:V   , learned counsel appearing'

   ..g:Aet»11fiVEj:"s.;-.;-.!««':;u't1z1zitr4 um mmthsmnding the
   retired in the ycar 2004, his gratuity 'n

  to him, under Sectirmn 4 of the

V  A Pafirfzgéfiktvaf Gratujigg Act, 1972, the petitioner 'm entitled

A 4' A   sane and there was no jtlstification Ear the
"     mpomem to withhold the saxrna. He ms further refied

x::n&fmarn1]ingaoft1'1isCou1'ti11aupportaf&
flz



IIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Oi' KARNATAKA I-'HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C

caa-nteambn that notwithstanding any imp-edime.nt. the

3. Mr.Mura3idhar,  
the respandam submits that :'r1'€':t._1a'  R

the claim and' the     mfi

audit.r;bje:c1::iom  xaiatgd:  whnn he
was wnrking as  pumuant 113
Amwfi-§*RO his reply. In
fact,  be caanstruacl as a
rejactézun Indeed, once the
  would be processed. He
 wm pctiticn is prematum and

  A   a&"rmte r%dy under Sactian 7

   at Gramity Act.

"  To appreciate thb cant-tmtzion, the concept of

_    as required In be noticed. Indeed, gz-a1:.1i1;r
   is no longer a bounty which is n5qu:red' to be:

distributed on re£:iren1e:nt of an employee. Indeed, an

emiwzsjraa is certainly entitled for the aenfioea mnderod

c[..'



135*  It is uaeful to extract the obaervation made by

the Apex Caurt in the ease of aqwm or 

orrmgs vs. numuuanm mm 

IIJ PAGE 530:

'F-'ensign and gratuity   C
'M amn-muted by     ]
an their  t   
deciasnm gr  :2;L5g    and
}:I'mperty in  deiay in
emttlaruerzt  lthermf must be
   of i'_r1t¢rc:at at
  actual paymeznt."

Indeeé, ii. ii§»_§i:;_   of the Apex Court

in 1Iu'1"rd cm:    whether indeed the.

  present context could be

 the rmpondenm haw: declined to

-  it 'iagfia be noticed that the petitioner. during his

  the respondent, Ear over a  of 30 yw

in diflmmt capacities, as a Graduate Asshmnt,

“A$$h=’Ehaat Managar and lastly as a District Manager fium

3 £9′?-1~ ‘fill 3Ii.’LO-£2004 trifi he attained superamtatzion. It fl

iIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H£GH COURT OF KARNATAXA I-HGI-I COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H!GH C

az

Haul ia oancerned, there should not be:

HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiGl-I COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C

is same not in dispute that the petitioner was wnrkim in

5:e:ue1*a§ plan duzrhg his tenure as Assistant Mianager.

‘% 3tatc%1t crf objwtiom filed 1:5?

wmfld disclose t&t  
caamuatad agairmt the    F'

censure was awarded on    % 

autlmrity. In fact,’ the as by the
peaanm maxim’ all in dispute.

But firm amount
cmuld em have ham
“FA copy ofthe queries raised
1:.;..rme fcnund at Amuxe-R1 which

the stabaxmmt of objections.

inmmuch an, the amaunt is tated to be
V mm the Transport Contractor. So also query
G11 t1’1E.a-e twn counts Indeed’ , tint: audit rapart

. Fwatzld dischwe that the said amount is roqmre-.d’ to be

mmwreé fmm the Transport Contrucnar. But lnwevar,

in reapact tzaf tha rema’m1’ng qucri»-:29, in… query 130.2, 4, 5,

I

K’

5, 7′ and 8, indeed, an explanation is required to bc
mm by me pefitianer. Amueqzz
disclcsac that the quorioa are only for the
91.04.2931 and 31.03.2002
worldng as Diatrict Manager Ht. ‘.
the pemmgr has
longer in service ‘down of the
respomibfiigr of inasnmch as,
oartaha oxcxoaaj various counts
to difiexrentg were to
soak for perusal of the
audit faexcnrda relatirzg tn the
queries, could not have been any

:t.:::.o_dou}at true: that under Soction 4 of the

shall be payable to the

»¢mk==}*x%§E;=n the tormirxatiorz of his employment, afiner he

‘A service oontimzously for not less than 30
% In fact, what is sigmcam ‘a there 9 a

” icnon-obetante clauae put as rider as to in what

nun uvunl ur Mm.-“am murl cumu- or mnnnmm HiGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH <

I

ckcmtaxw the gamity amount could be withhelctfl/'

' 'I

uurl -uvuau ur mmnmm mun Lpuxl or xnxunmxn HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH <

for any act of willful omission or neglgenoe caunitg any
damage or less to, or destruction of, pa*oper1:_5j

to the emhym, shall be forfeited to
damage Ctr' 1055 so caused. K
aha be wmuy or partially %

such exnpinn-yea have '

mmtzimtw an ofi'r.-'nee
Ifiefi Wf: have the gratuity,
the kzgitimgte H claim 'a
withheldg 'an of today an the
is esse::1t.i9.I is that the

petifion;é;r–…waa to answer certa1n' queues'

mpm-1: when ha was a Diaizrict
spot and the queris. But

vv petitioner havm attained superarmuatiaan
"ifffhe am? 2904 and afim putfi-=13 in his pap-M for

. _ czfthe amount. the mmmumca' tion is 'usual at

A on 11.08.2005 him to hk reply
to an queries raised in the auéit report. In fact. the

/.7"

RGH COURT OF KARNATAXA HiGH OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C

13

petitioner has apem three years flib’ in thc
Caurt Izflead, fl certm’n1y- be

mrmi&n:~ad as a rejection of the claim of
fiasr gratzzitgr which could raagfia’
this Court in the case at

mm Vi».

conwmmal It is only
after mjecttian sf ‘ a muse of

aetinn wu11vI¢l:”ag;’iae{‘tkJ”:’t;1:§~::”‘to redress his

I’1&’x’§: questicm. as in what

wmgld ‘F’ of the Act in the pmaent

U % “incised, sub-section :49.) of semann 7 of
indinate that if mm: is any dhputa
me slams: is mquircad to be determfi after
% % enquiry by rm appellate authwrity. It is no doubt
__tI’ll¢ that thnh wufl be terrrmd as an alternate mmedy

wizizhihukjrcotlldhavebeenixxvukedbytln

pafitianer. But hcswever, even for raisfi such a dispute: Q