Allowed

Dr.G.Renuka v. University of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Oct 2020WP(C)/1716/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 overrides the Kerala Service Rules. A retired professor entitled to gratuity for 33 years was directed to receive the difference between the amount paid and the statutory maximum of Rs. 10 lakhs. The court affirmed that state rules cannot restrict service period or gratuity calculation under the superior Central Act.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent University to pay the balance gratuity of Rs. 3 lakhs with permissible interest within one month.

Dr.G.Renuka Vs University of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 9TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1716 OF 2018(L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR.G.RENUKA AGED 67 YEARS RETIRED PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034, RESIDING AT KRA NO. 96, CHURCH LANE, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH PO, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034

¶11

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶12

R1 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C)No.1716 OF 2018(L)

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 1^st day of October 2020

¶18

The short question involved in this Writ

¶19

Petition is whether the petitioner who has rendered

¶20

Thirty Three (33) years of service in the University as a lecturer can be denied payment of Gratuity as per statute. Kerala University adopted Kerala Service Rules (herein after called 'KSR') and other provisions of service as applicable to State Government employees. Gratuity is also one of the benefits permissible under KSR. The petitioner

¶21

on 9.6.2011 submitted a request for repayment of gratuity as Ext.P2. Vide order dated 30.4.2013, the petitioner was paid gratuity amount of Rs. Seven(7) lakhs.

¶22

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

¶23

the petitioner submits that, petitioner is an employee of University of Kerala under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (herein after

¶24

WP(C)No.1716 OF 2018(L)

¶25

¶26

called 1972 Act). The respondents cannot limit period of service to 30 years as per Rules 68 of Part III of KSR and the matter in this regard is clearly covered by judgment of this Court in State

¶27

of Kerala and others v. Omana S.N [2017 (5) KHC

¶28

437]. The petitioner, earlier, was paid a gratuity

¶29

of Rs.3 lakhs and thereafter another Rs.Four(4)

¶30

lakhs, totalling Rs.7 lakhs. Legislature in the

¶31

wisdom caused an amendment to Sub Section (3) of

¶32

Section 4 of 1972 Act thereby a maximum amount of

¶33

gratuity payable to employees shall not exceed

¶34

Rs.10 lakhs instead of Rs.7 lakhs. Since the

¶35

petitioner retired on 31.5.2011, the aforementioned amendment would also be applicable.

¶36

KSR restricting the period of service would not

¶37

have a binding effect in view of Section 14 of 1972

¶38

Act having an overriding effect.

¶39

the respondents opposes the writ petition by

¶40

¶41

WP(C)No.1716 OF 2018(L)

¶42

relying upon the averments made in the counter affidavit in paragraph 6 whereby the University limited the period of service as 30 years and not 33 years. Thus urged that the entire gratuity amount due to the petitioner has already been paid. Some amount was, earlier, withheld on account of the fact that there was certain outstanding dues from the petitioner on account of a liability

¶43

certificate and thus the petitioner is not entitled to any interest.

¶44

I have heard the counsel for the

¶45

parties and appraised the paper book. Sub Section (3) of Section 4 was amended with effect from 24/5/2010. The amount of gratuity payable to an

¶46

employee has been restricted to Rs.10 lakhs. In the instant case, the petitioner has been paid gratuity of Rs.7 lakhs by limiting his service period as 30

¶47

years as evidenced from contents of paragraph 6, which is extracted herein below;

¶48

WP(C)No.1716 OF 2018(L)

¶49

¶50

“6. Para 9 is denied. University is limiting the length of service oat 30 years and curtailing gratuity. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, does not propose to limit the length of service and to reduce gratuity. The petitioner is hence eligible for gratuity for 33 years, of course subject to statutory limit.”

¶51

Similar controversy was raised in the

¶52

judgment cited supra wherein, the State of Kerala

¶53

relied upon Rule 68 Part III of the KSR limiting

¶54

the period of service as 30 years. This Court noticing the facts as well as the amendments in

¶55

the Gratuity Act and the provisions of Section 14, rejected the plea of University and allowed the writ petition by granting Rs.10 lakh.

¶56

For the sake of brevity Section 14 of the

¶57

payment of Gratuity Act reads thus;

¶58

“Section: 14 Act to override other enactments, etc. The provisions of this Act or any rule made there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.”

¶59

On plain and simple perusal of provisions

¶60

of Section 14 of the Act, it is axiomatic that it

¶61

would have an overriding effect on the State Rules.

¶62

In my view, the order of the respondent - Kerala

¶63

University in limiting the service of the

¶64

¶65

petitioner as 30 years is not only preposterous but fallacious and erroneous . The state rules cannot override the statutory provisions of Section 14 of 1972 Act.

¶66

For the reasons aforementioned, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent-University is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.3 lakhs along with permissible interest to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶75

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO. AD. AII 2.98/78 DATED 28.12.1978 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09.06.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTED DATED 16.07.2013 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 14.08.2014 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 14.12.2017 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.03.2003 IN OP.NO. 674/2002 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2008 IN WA.NO. 1062/2003 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF WA.NO. 1569/2017 AS REPORTED IN 2017 (4) KLT 1043
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE EXTRACT OF SECHEDULE 1 UNDER RULE 7 OF KERALA CIVIL SERVICE (CCA) RULES 1960

¶76

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶77

¶78

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Dr.G.Renuka v. University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.G.Renuka v. University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arsharani P T., Vs Principal

Praveen Kumar P. Vs National University of Advance Legal Studies

The Principal, Karuna Medical College Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences

A2Z Engineers and Pile Foundation Vs Controller of Defence Accounts

Harikrishnan.G Vs State of Kerala

Binimol.K.G Vs State of Kerala