Rakesh Chandra Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran and Videsh Vyapar Anubhag Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 541 of 2026

¶3

Rakesh Chandra Pathak

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran And Videsh Vyapar Anubhag Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) y .	: :	Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Kushagra Kanodia C.S.C., Rajesh Kumar, Surendra Kumar Singh .....Respondent(s)

¶8

Court No. - 18

¶9

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶10

Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prakhar Nigam, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.

¶12

Present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 24.10.2025 whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity has been refuted.

¶13

The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1991, on daily wage basis, and thereafter, the petitioner was regularized in the year 2015 and he superannuated after rendering 34 years of continuous service on 31.1.2024, and therefore, the retirement dues became due to him. He added that the gratuity amount only to the tune of Rs.1,51,200/- was found payable by the Department on 24.4.2024, i.e., after passing of three months of retirement of the petitioner.

¶14

Being aggrieved, the petitioner instituted Writ-A No.6347 of 2025 and in compliance of the order dated 4.6.2025 passed in that writ petition, gratuity amount payable to the petitioner was computed as Rs.6,97,846/- out of which, Rs.5,46,646/- was found payable to the petitioner after adjusting amount of Rs.1,51,200/- which was already paid to him. Thereafter, the petitioner instituted Writ-A No. 8987 of 2025 for non-payment of the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. He submitted that the petitioner sought interest on the late payment of the aforesaid gratuity amount, but that has been declined, arbitrarily.

¶15

WRIA No. 541 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

He argued that so far as the order impugned, which declines interest on the gratuity amount, is concerned, it is evident that the reason assigned is that the rest of the amount has been paid in compliance with the order passed by this Court, and the matter was pending consideration before this Court; therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any interest over the amount of late payment of gratuity. He submitted that pendency of the writ petition would have no bearing with respect to the petitioner's entitlement for payment of interest on the gratuity amount. Therefore, submission is that the order impugned dated 24.10.2025 is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed.

¶18

On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 & 3 submitted that just after retirement, the gratuity amount was computed and Rs.1,51,200/- was found to be payable to the petitioner and thereafter in compliance of the order dated 20.8.2025, the rest of the gratuity amount has been paid to the petitioner while declining interest over the delayed payment of gratuity on the ground that the writ petition was instituted and after decision in the writ petition, the same has been paid, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for interest and there is no erroneousness in the order impugned dated 24.10.2025.

¶19

Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the records, it transpires that after successfully rendering services of 34 years in the Department, the petitioner superannuated on 31.1.2024, and the full amount of gratuity was not paid; rather, the amount of Rs.1,51,200/- was found to be payable to the petitioner against the gratuity amount. This Court has gone through the order dated 24.10.2025 wherein the sole basis for declining the payment of interest on the gratuity amount is that the matter was pending consideration before this Court, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any interest over the gratuity amount.

¶20

When this Court examines the aforesaid order in facts and law, it is apparent that the amount of gratuity was computed on 24.4.2024 and that was paid on lesser tune of Rs.1,51,200/- whereas the rest of the amount, i.e., Rs.5,46,646/- was further found to be payable to the petitioner, as such, there was fault on the part of the respondent nos.2 and 3 in the computation of the gratuity amount to which the petitioner was entitled and the same could only be ascertained once the judgment and order was passed by this Court.

¶21

So far as the ground which has been taken for non payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity amount, is concerned, in fact, the pendency of the writ petition would have no bearing or impact on the payment of interest, as the employer itself has not paid the amount, which was payable to the petitioner on the date of his retirement and the employer enjoyed the amount.

¶22

Provision of Section 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides that

¶23

WRIA No. 541 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

the employer would pay gratuity within 30 days of retirement. Section 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 reads as under:-

¶26

"Section 7(3): The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable."

¶27

The gratuity was payable, in the first instance, when the computation of gratuity was done, which was after three months, thus, as provided in the Act, there was two months delay in computation of gratuity amount, which was earlier done by the Department. Further when in compliance of the order of this Court, the claim of gratuity was reconsidered, it was found that the remaining amount of Rs.5,46,646/- is also payable to the petitioner against the gratuity and thereafter this Court finds that the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,46,646/- has been paid but with delay of about one year.

¶28

Consequently, the order dated 24.10.2025 herein, is unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed.

¶29

The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to take a fresh decision with respect to the payment of interest, for which the petitioner is entitled, within eight weeks.

¶30

With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is allowed .

¶31

January 21, 2026 Ram Murti

¶32

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakesh Chandra Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran and Videsh Vyapar Anubhag Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Chandra Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran and Videsh Vyapar Anubhag Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Ram Susheel and 29 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Karuna Singh @ Smt Karuna Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Shyam Bihari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Krishi Vipnan Evam Krishi Videsh Vyapar Vibhag and 4 Others

Dr. Bhagchand Chhaba and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Agricultural Education and Research Lko. and 4 Others

Budhiram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Edu. and Research Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others