Dismissed¶49

Sri. B. Prabhudevaru v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2025WP/9665/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, WP No. 9665 of 2016 (L-KSRTC), decided 11.06.2025 by Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde. Keywords: Payment of Gratuity Act 1972; Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority orders; computation of gratuity with or without dearness allowance; reduction of gratuity arrears from Rs.1,19,619/- to Rs.5,560/-; claim of Rs.98,996/-; BMTC/KSRTC retired employee; follows W.A. No.100202/2015; SLP No.4744/2020 dismissed by Supreme Court; Articles 226 and 227; writ petition dismissed; release of amount in deposit with interest.

What did the court decide?

Release of the amount in deposit with interest, if any, in favour of the petitioner, forthwith. ¶49

Sri. B. Prabhudevaru Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:19958 WP No. 9665 of 2016

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 9665 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. B. PRABHUDEVARU, S/O G.R.BHASMANGADEVARU, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, (RETD. CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC) R/AT NO.13/A, 11^TH MAIN ROAD, HAMPINAGARA, VIJAYANAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560104. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SOMASUNDER RAO R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI LAKSHMAN RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE P.G.ACT, 1972, DIVISION-KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029.

¶15

THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE P.G.ACT, 1972, DIVISION-KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R2 AND R3)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19958 WP No. 9665 of 2016

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 DATED 26.12.2015 AT ANNEX-A;DIRECT R-1 TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER AT ANNEX-B PASSED BY THE R-2 CONTROLLING AUTHORITY DETERMINING THE DIFFERENCE OF GRATUITY AMOUNTING TO RS.98,996/- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST OF THE RATE OF 10% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE IT IS LEGALLY DUE.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶25

The petitioner is assailing the order dated 26.12.2015 marked at Annexure-A and seeks direction to pay Rs.98,996/- towards alleged arrears of gratuity along with interest at 10% p.a. from the due date till payment.

¶26

Certain facts are not in dispute. The petitioner

¶27

was employee of respondent No.1/Corporation who joined service on 16.04.1969 and retired on 10.05.1994. After

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19958 WP No. 9665 of 2016

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

retirement, the respondent No.1/Corporation determined

¶31

the gratuity payable to the petitioner and paid the amount. The petitioner accepted the said amount in the year 1994. Thereafter, in the year 2011, the petitioner approached the Controlling Authority on the premise that the gratuity amount is not correctly calculated and claimed Rs.1,19,619/- towards the arrears of gratuity. The Controlling Authority accepted the petitioner's claim and passed an order to pay Rs.1,19,619/- along with interest at 10% p.a. in case the amount is not deposited within 30 days.

¶32

Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.1/Corporation filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority in terms of impugned order dated 26.12.2015 allowed the appeal in part and modified the order passed by the Controlling Authority. The Appellate Authority directed the respondent No.1/Corporation to pay Rs.5,560/- and awarded interest at 10% p.a. from 08.07.2011 to 10.01.2014 i.e. the date

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:19958 WP No. 9665 of 2016

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

on which the amount is deposited before the Controlling

¶37

Authority.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶39

would contend that the First Appellate Authority is not justified in reducing the amount payable to the petitioner as ordered by the Controlling Authority. It is his contention that the dearness allowance payable to the petitioner is not taken into account while calculating the gratuity.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/Corporation would contend that a similar issue was dealt by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100202/2015 and has held that the employees are not entitled to claim gratuity by taking into account the dearness allowance as contended by the petitioner. It is further submitted that order in W.A. No.100202/2015 is assailed before the Apex Court in SLP No.4744/2020 and the Apex Court has dismissed the SLP. Referring to the said orders, it is submitted that the contention raised by

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19958 WP No. 9665 of 2016

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the petitioner is answered against the petitioner in the aforementioned orders.

¶44

This Court has considered the contentions

¶45

raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶46

It is noticed that in W.A. No.100202/2015 this Court has taken a view in favour of respondent No.1/Corporation and the contention raised by the employee in the said petition, which is similar to the contention raised by the petitioner is rejected. The SLP No.4744/2020 challenging the order in W.A.

¶47

No.100202/2015 is dismissed.

¶48