Partly allowed¶48

Anantha Padmanabha Rao T. R. v. the Chief Traffic Manager

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2025WP/22785/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:34066; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; S.7(3A); interest on belated/delayed payment of gratuity; Controlling Authority/Labour Officer order set aside as lacking discussion; remand for fresh consideration; BMTC retiree/conductor; Karnataka High Court; W.P. No.22785 of 2021 (L-KSRTC); Articles 226 & 227; 10% per annum interest claim; Rs.2,47,078/- gratuity difference; disposal within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.08.2018 (Annexure-A) set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.2 (Controlling Authority) for fresh orders confined to the denial of interest on belated payment of gratuity, after affording opportunity to both parties, to be disposed of within three months. ¶48

Anantha Padmanabha Rao T. R. Vs the Chief Traffic… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest on the belated payment of gratuity, as contended in view of the Circular issued by the Central Government and Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, notwithstanding the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 denying such interest. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

Reconsideration by respondent No.2 is confined to the question of denial of interest on the belated payment of gratuity.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

On careful perusal of the impugned order, there is no proper discussion with regard to denial of interest for belated payment of gratuity.

¶46

Key takeaways

Petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 at Annexure-A is set aside.ratio¶48
The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to pass orders afresh expeditiously, providing opportunity to both parties.ratio¶53
Respondent No.2 shall dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (L-KSRTC) No.22785 of 2021, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.), decided 01.09.2025 - A retired BMTC employee (retired 30.06.2016 after 38 years 7 months 29 days of continuous service) was paid gratuity of Rs.11,05,702/- on 06.07.2017 against a claimed entitlement of Rs.13,52,780/-; the Labour Officer/Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (PGA/CR No.175/2017) directed payment of the Rs.2,47,078/- difference with interest at 10% per annum but denied interest on the belated payment of gratuity (order dated 31.08.2018, Annexure-A). Held: on careful perusal the impugned order showed no proper discussion regarding denial of interest for belated payment of gratuity; the order was set aside and the matter remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration confined to that denial, after hearing both parties, with disposal directed within three months. Petition partly allowed. Counsel's claimed basis for interest - a Central Government circular and S.7(3A), Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - was left for fresh decision by the Controlling Authority.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34066 WP No. 22785 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.22785 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANANTHA PADMANABHA RAO T.R S/O LATE T.N. RAMAKRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A #15/26, 7^TH MAIN, 3^RD PHASE, 5^TH BLOCK, 3^RD STAGE, BSK BANGALORE SOUTH BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE BANGALORE - 560 085.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. J.R.THIPPESWAMY, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:34066 WP No. 22785 of 2021

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE LABOUR OFFICER AND THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

¶18

UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT SUB DIVISION - II, KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY.T., ADV. FOR R1; SRI. RAJENDRA.K.R., AGA FOR R2)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.08.2018 PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THIS WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS DENIAL OF INTEREST ON THE BELATED PAYMENT OF GRATUITY IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:34066 WP No. 22785 of 2021

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Heard Sri. J.R.Thippeswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Hareesh Bhandary.T., learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as Sri. Rajendra.K.R., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶29

The present petition has been filed by the workmen who was appointed as a conductor with respondent No.1Corporation and retired from service on 30.06.2016. It is a case of the petitioner that as on the date of retirement, he had put in more than 38 years 7 months and 29 days of continuous service with respondent No.1. At the time of retirement, he was working as an Assistant Traffic Inspector and his last drawn basic pay is Rs.33,540/- and Dearness Allowance was Rs.12,074/-. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after retirement, petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.11,05,702/- as gratuity by respondent No.1 on 06.07.2017 taking into consideration his total service of 38 years 7 months 29 days. Out of which, one year was excluded towards break in service. It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.13,52,780/- as

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:34066 WP No. 22785 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

gratuity by respondent No.1, out of which, a sum of Rs.11,05,702/- has been paid and balance amount of Rs.2,47,078/- is due, to be paid to him by respondent No.1Corporation. He further contends that petitioner made several representations requesting the payment of gratuity amount but the same was not paid. Hence, the petitioner filed an application in PGA/CR No.175/2017 before the Labour OfficerControlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Sub Division-II at Bengaluru. Along with the main application, a separate application for condonation of delay was partly allowed and respondent No.1 was directed to pay Rs.2,47,078/as difference of gratuity amount along with interest at 10% per annum but denied the interest on belated payment of gratuity. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a denial of interest on the belated payment of gratuity and that the petitioner is undergoing old age health issues and suffering from financial difficulties, he also could not contact his counsel. Hence, there was a delay in approaching the Court. Therefore, the delay if any was unintentional and for bonafide reasons.

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34066 WP No. 22785 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Further, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶37

contended that respondent No.2 passed the impugned order of denial of interest. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-A. It is further contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order does not discuss about the delay in payment of gratuity and the delay in paying the interest component to be paid for the delayed payment of the gratuity. It is further contended that there is a delay of one

¶38

year in making the payment of gratuity and the issues with regard to belated payment of gratuity has not been considered and discussed while passing the impugned order. Hence, he seeks to quash the impugned order as it is not a reasoned order and the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest on belated gratuity amount in view of the Circular issued by the Central Government and so also as per Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Therefore, he contends that

¶39

the impugned order passed is liable to be set aside on the ground of denial of interest for belated payment of gratuity and that the petitioner is entitled to 10% interest per annum.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:34066 WP No. 22785 of 2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Per contra, Sri. Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel

¶44

for respondent No.1 sustains the impugned order contending that all contentions of the petitioner and respondents have been considered and reasoned order has been passed, which does not require interference, much less setting aside the impugned order. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶45

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the respondents.

¶46

On careful perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that there is no proper discussions with regard to denial of interest for belated payment of gratuity. Therefore, it is necessary for the Controlling Authority-respondent No.2 to take into consideration these aspects of belated payment of interest of gratuity amount to the petitioner and consider the case afresh, hear learned counsel for both parties and pass fresh orders. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) Petition is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 31.08.2018 at Annexure-A is set aside.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:34066 WP No. 22785 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

(ii) The respondent No.2 to reconsider the matter afresh only so far as the denial of interest on belated payment of gratuity is concerned.

¶53

(iii) Hence, the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to pass orders afresh. The same shall be done expeditiously by providing opportunity to both the parties.

¶54

(iv) Respondent No.2 shall dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶55

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶56

SMJ

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 31.08.2018 passed by respondent No.2 (Labour Officer and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Sub Division-II) at Annexure-A, denying interest on the belated payment of gratuity.¶21
Labour Officer and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Sub Division-II, Bengaluru · 31.08.2018
Prior proceeding
Petitioner was appointed as a conductor with respondent No.1 Corporation (BMTC) and retired from service on 30.06.2016, having put in more than 38 years 7 months and 29 days of continuous service; at retirement he was working as Assistant Traffic Inspector with last drawn basic pay of Rs.33,540/- and Dearness Allowance of Rs.12,074/-.¶29
Prior proceeding
After retirement, respondent No.1 paid the petitioner Rs.11,05,702/- as gratuity on 06.07.2017, computed on total service of 38 years 7 months 29 days, with one year excluded towards break in service.¶29
Prior proceeding
Petitioner contended entitlement to Rs.13,52,780/- as gratuity; with Rs.11,05,702/- paid, a balance of Rs.2,47,078/- remained due from respondent No.1 Corporation.¶33
Prior proceeding
Petitioner made several representations requesting payment of the gratuity amount, but the same was not paid.¶33
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed application PGA/CR No.175/2017 before the Labour Officer and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Sub Division-II, Bengaluru.¶33
Prior proceeding
Along with the main application, a separate application for condonation of delay was partly allowed; respondent No.1 was directed to pay Rs.2,47,078/- as difference of gratuity amount along with interest at 10% per annum, but interest on the belated payment of gratuity was denied.¶33
Prior proceeding
Delay in approaching the Court was attributed to the petitioner's old age health issues, financial difficulties and inability to contact his counsel; stated to be unintentional and for bonafide reasons.¶33

Anantha Padmanabha Rao T. R. v. the Chief Traffic Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anantha Padmanabha Rao T. R. v. the Chief Traffic Manager

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

Sri Bytappa Since Dead by His Lrs Vs Smt.Prema Kumari Since Dead Her Lrs

Nagashetty Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri Abdul Khuddus Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Myrada Vs the Regional Pf Commissioner-Ii Employees Provident Fund Organization

Sgs India Private Limited Vs K Nagaraju Reddu

B.M.T.C. Vs Anwar Khan