The High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition challenging an Appellate Authority's order reducing a petitioner's gratuity. The Court held that since 71% of Dearness Allowance had already merged with basic pay during service, repeating this merger for gratuity calculation was untenable.
The Writ Petition was rejected as devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:24701 WP No. 47500 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 47500 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.G.JANARDHAN S/O B.D.GURUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.308, LIG-3, BLOCK NO.8, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, SURYANAGAR, CHANDAPUR, ANEKAL ROAD, BANGALORE-560 081.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PUSHPA.T.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. AMARAVATHY.H.R., AGA FOR R2 AND R3)
NC: 2024:KHC:24701 WP No. 47500 of 2014
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Smt.Pushpa.T.S., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for respondent No.1, Smt.Amaravathy.H.R., learned AGA for respondents 2 and 3 have appeared in person.
2. The short facts are these:
The petitioner was appointed as a Badli Driver in the establishment of the Corporation on 22.11.1975. He retired from service on 20.08.2010. The Corporation determined the gratuity and paid it to the workman. The petitioner filed an application before the Controlling Authority claiming a difference in gratuity on 23.03.2011. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 24.01.2013 allowed the claim petition and directed the Corporation to pay the gratuity. Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority the Corporation preferred an
appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated:17.06.2014 allowed the appeal filed by the
NC: 2024:KHC:24701 WP No. 47500 of 2014
Corporation and modified the order of the Controlling Authority. The order of the Appellate Authorities is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
By way of reply to this contention, counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., on instructions submits that 71% of DA has merged with the basic pay of the petitioner and he has been paid the same. Counsel therefore, submits that the Appellate Authority is justified in allowing the appeal. She submits that
the Writ petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
Sd/JUDGE
MRP
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the merger of 71% Dearness Allowance with basic pay can be repeated at the time of determining gratuity.
Whether the order of the Appellate Authority modifying the Controlling Authority's order on gratuity was justified.
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the gratuity order has any merit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. B.G. Janardhan
Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C.
Assistant Labour Commissioner
Deputy Labour Commissioner
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
