Disposed

Cheva Mallaiah v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited and 2 others

Telangana HC12 Jun 2025WP/1385/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired coal worker sought release of gratuity withheld by Singareni Collieries because he had not vacated company quarters. The court held gratuity could not be withheld for non-vacation of quarters, directed its release within two weeks, and closed the employer's connected writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to release the gratuity amount due to the petitioner within two weeks; W.P.No.26754 of 2023 closed; no costs.

Cheva Mallaiah Vs The Singareni Collieries… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132s2 |

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS: 1385 AN D 26754 0F 2023

¶7

W.P.NO: 1385 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

cheva [Vlallaiah, Age. 6] years, occ- short firer, R/o.er. No.T2-235, 8 rncrine Cotony. Ramagundiam eetoapaili oistri"i iis)-

¶10

...PET|TIoNER

¶11

AND

¶12

The singareni colieries company Limited and 2 others, Rep by its Manaoing Director cum Vice CEiI*ql Sing'areni Bhavan neo Uitti Hi[er'ab;j''"""""'

¶13

z p91919l Manaser, RG-,, Sinsar6ni Co,aries Lto nirisrriiii]Fiioapatri District

¶14

General Manager, RG-lll, Singareni Collaries Ltd, Ramagundam, peddapalli District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ or Direction more particurarry one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 1-3 not considering the Petitioner application dated.29-7-2022 for setfling the arrears and gratuity etc, and disconnection of electricity connection and water facility threatening him to vacate the quarters by Respondent company is against to the Article 14 and 21 of the constitution, and Principles of Natural Justice and consequen y direct the Respondent Authorities to pay arrears, benefits and gratuity to the petitioner.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under section i 5i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to

¶19

directtheReSponcelllauthoritiestogiveelectricityconnection,r,ra:erfacilityto the Petitioners^{(luild€r:i pendingdisposal of the abovewrit petilion'}

¶20

Counsel for the^{Petilioner:SRI P.ACHUT RAMA SHASTRY} Counsel for^{th€ Reslx)ndents: SRI P.SRIHARSHA REDDY' SCFCrF} SINGARENI COLLIERIES^CO.LTD

¶21

w.P.NO^{:26754 OF2J'.23}

¶22

Between:

¶23

TheGenerrl4,rnager'TheSinqareniColl i eriesCorrrpattyLrrited,Adriyala project ,\n:a jenrenary dlox;-405^{- ti,} aamaqiii^{van lzrl. Peddapalli} District,^1'elarg ana

¶24

.. AND 'ETITIONER

¶25

Apoellatr: Autr^o.ity^{underThe Paymentof Gratuity Acll .1972Dy. chief} -^^ i ;#r.;;t;r;;, r ti6n"ric"ntrul),^{Arl campus. Vidvanasar Hv le rabad - 500} 007.

¶26

2 iie Con:roltin I^{Authority under The Pavment of} .Gratuitv.l:q!r'!!l1O^ntst LJbour C;ornrr ssioner^{(Central).tr/lancherial,statione'l at I I s' f l I PU} Townshitt,^Rarnrgundam. S;"i;;;;','ri .L-rr^{.on of Komaraiah,Aged69 vears Fl/o QuarterNo T2-} ias, el"iriii' Srlony,^{Ramagundam Maridal, Peddat'alli[)istri:t, Telangana'} PIN cod<:. 1;05211.

¶27

Petition und:- Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia pra'/irg that in the} circumstances^{s-a':r,rlin the affidavit filedtherewith,the Fligh oourt maybe} pleased to issue a:tropriate^{writ,order or Direction more partictlztrly one in the} nature of a^{V! rlt cf oedioraricallingfor the recordspertairring to order dated} 05.07.2019p:tss;e'Jl;Vthe2ndRespondentandtherlrde.dated20.05.2023 passedbythelstf3Spondentandquashthesamehcldinlllhi.titisarbitrary, illegal and conttl^r', '^law.

¶28

IA NO: 1 OF²⁰²³

¶29

Petition u,rder^{Section151 CPC praying that in the circumsttrnces stated in} the affidavit^{filedin ,"upportof the petition, the High court maybt:, rleasedgrants} stay of all furtnerr^{proceedingspursuantto the orderpassi:tl by the 2nd} Respondent datr:cl^{1ii.07.2019 in File No. 4817t2017-ALCltVC perrding disposal of} the Writ Petition

¶30

Gounsel for the Petitioner: sRr p sRr HARSHA REDDY, sc FoR STNGARENT COLLIERIES CO LTD counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: sRI JANARDHAN GouD suNKAR|, CENTRAL GOVT. Sr. COUNSEL Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: -

¶31

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶32

¶33

HON,BLE^{MRS.]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA} a nd 2675^40F2o23 wBLr--Pl-l^{.I.TIoNNos. 1385}

¶34

coMMoN^oRDJBi

¶35

Since^{the it;sue involved in both the writ petitronsis} one and^{the same, they are being heard togethr:rand} disposed^{of by rnray of this common order'}

¶36

2.HearrJsriP.AchutRamashastry,learned<:ounse| appearing^{on tlehalf of the petitioner/respondentsarrd Sri} P.Sri^{Harsha Reddy, Iearned StandingCouns;el for} Singareni6q||ieriescompanyLimitedappearingorrlrehalf of the^{resPondents/Petitioner'}

¶37

The on r AD roach^ed the court bV- filino 2 e tn a r s er: W.P.No.1 385_ ''.. t.r issue Writ or^{Direction more Particu a"ly} one^{ltr rlat; -e of Writ of Mandamusdeclarini;th3 e( tion} of th3^{ReslondentNo'1 to 3 in not con:;idel'ing the} Petitirner^{i'pplication daled 29-7-2022for settlinqthe} arrears^{ar- d gratuity etc, and disconnection:f e ectl i<'ity} Conn3Ctiolandwaterfacilitythreateninghinrt].'/.lcate the clurlrt:r.s^{by RespondentCompanyis aqain;tto the} Artic e 14^{and 21 of the constitution' and Principl :s; of} Naturall.r!;ticeandconsequentlydirecttheRe:;porCent

W.P.No.138S

SN,J _26754_2023

Authorities to pay a rreai-s, benefits and gratuity to the Petiiioner and pass

¶42

4 e r P No. 75 t 2 e r r

¶43

,..... to issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiora ri callin ,o. the records pertaining to Order dated 05.07.2r,n by the 2'd Respondent and the order ou," 'uttuo

¶44

Responden r . r."t*^ji;' ir:"' :, :' ::::,, ;r,,, :: ",, i, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and to pass....,,

¶45

The case oF the petitioner in W.p.No.1385 of 2023 _Cheva Mallaiah, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Coal Filler in respondent_company on 2s.05.7979 and retired on 3I.05.2014 based on incorrect date of birth 03.03.1954. The petitioner claims his actual date of birth is 10.05.195g hence the retirement of the petitioner should be on 31.05.201g. The petitioner challenged the premature retirement through W.p. No. 12543 of 2015 and other writs, which were clubbed and disposed of by a common order dated 09.06.2015. Despite the court,s direction, the respondent_company failed to act on his appeal and denied rejnstatement. The gratuity amount oF Rs.15,08,333/- was ordered in favour of the petitioner by the

¶46

¶47

sN'l

¶48

W. P. No.^{1385-2 6} 7 5 4 -2023

¶49

,r'

¶50

Controlling^{Atrth:-ity under the Gratuity Act on 05'01''2011)' but} payment is withh:ld^{due to a pending appeal' Aggrieved try the} same,^the t)et.itioner^{filed the present writ petition}

¶51

PE RUSED RECORD:

¶52

A) The order ft c rt a o .20 oas-r;edⁱⁿ w.P No. 75 of 23i e r te he nd r

¶53

" No -ir:e Before^Admission'

¶54

,< ri Gadi^{Praveen Kumar, learned Det u:y} Solicitcr^{G':neral takes notice on behalfof restonce'lt} Nos.1 and^{2 and waives further notice'}

¶55

Re,;istry is therefore^{directed not to issuo noli :e} to respc,ndent^{Nos.1 and 2 in view of the waive -Is s le} notice to^{rr::;Pondent No.3.}

¶56

[-earrted counsel^{for the petitioneris pe rmirt:d} to tat<e^{(l Jl: personalnotice on respondent flo 3 by} Regis'-ered Post^{with Acknowledgment Dtre ;:nd file} proof of se rYice thereof.

¶57

-ea^{rred counselfor the petitionersubmitted} that t:ht:^{gratuity amount is not payable to resconJont} No.3 a-c hr:^{has not vacated the quarters and he has ttot} taken "No^{clue certificate" from the petitioner-com prllly '} He furtht:r submitted^{that the amount hes lle en} depo:;ited before^{the ControllingAuthoritywhile filirg of} the app,eal^rtself.

¶58

¶59

SN,J W. P.No. 1385_26754-2023

¶60

ln view of the above, there shall be interim stay of payment of gratuity amount to respondent No.3 for a period of four (4) weeks.

¶61

List the matter on 30.t0.2023.,,

¶62

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerCheva Mallaiah submits that the gratuity amount due to the petitioner cannot be withheld on the ground that the petitioner had not vacated the subject quarters allotted to him and requests eight weeks time for vacating the quarters.

¶63

Learned Standing counser appearing on beharf of the respondent-compan y, on the other hand, submits that for release oF gratuity amount due to the petitioner, the petitioner already approached the appellate authority and the respondent company had already deposited an amount of Rs.15,08,333/_ and to that effect, learned Standing Counsel has also placed DDs dated 03.04.2020 and 12.06.2020 on record.

¶64

Learned Standing Counsel however contends that unless the petitioner vacates the quarters and submits no due certificate, the gratuity amount due to the petitioner cannot be released to the petitioner.

¶65

¶66

5N,J W.P.No.1.185 1'6754 2023

¶67

This Cou-t opines that the gratuity cannor be withreld by the respondenl' company on the ground that the F)etitioner did not vacate the qJarters. Learned Standing^(lounsel appearing on tehalf of the respondent-com pa ny is ,llso not in a position tc, prlar:e before this Court any provision thi)t errpowers the respor dr:nt-company to withhold gratuity on the grc,und that the petitiorer dicl not vacate the quarters.

¶68

1O. The ApS::,L Court in its i udoment dated 3.2018 reoorted rn 2(118 (5) Suoreme Court Cases 430 in ''Netram Sah v State of Chatisoarh and another" at Pa ras I.7, L8. L9. 20 and 22_olSCIved_a_S_uXdCE

¶69

"17. In th,3 circumstances appearing in the (las€, it would he the travesty of justice, if the appellanl: is denie<l his l€lgitimate claim of gratuity despite rerde^-irrg "continuorJ; service" for a period of 25 years wl'rir:h even, accc,rling to the State, were regularize.d. flre questicn as to from which date such serv ces ln ere regulariz:ed was of no signiFicance for calculating the total ength of service for claiming gratuity ilmcult once the serrvices were regularized by the State.

¶70

lt w.s indeed the State who took 22 y{lars :o regularize the service of the appellant and went ()n taking rvork from the appellant on paymenl: 01, a meag€r salary of Rs.2776/- per month for 22 lctrg

¶71

¶72

SN,J W. P.No.1385_26754_2023

¶73

years uninterruptedly and only in the last three years, the State started paying a salary of Rs.11,107l_ per month to the appellant. Having regularized the services of the appellant, the State had no justifiable reason to deny the benefit of gratuity to the appellant which was his statutory right under the Act. It being a welfare legislation meant for the benefit of the employees, who serve their employer for a long time, it is the duty of the State to voluntarily pay the gratuity amount to the appellant rather than to force the employee to approach the Court to get his genuine claim.

¶74

In view of the foregoing discussion, we cannot agree with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court which is legally unsustainable. It is really unfortunate that the genuine claim of the appellant was being denied by the State at every stage of the proceedings up to this Court and dragged him in fruitless litigation for all these years.

¶75

indeed, this reminds us of the apt observations made by the Chief Justice M.C. Chagla (as he then was) in the case oF Firm Kaluram Sitaram vs. The Dominion of India (AIR 1954 Bombay 50). The learned Chief lustice in his distinctive style of writing while deciding the case between an individual citizen and the State made the following pertinent observations: .'Now, we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily reply on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case

SN,I

W.^{P. N} 0.138^5-267:4-2023

¶80

oF the^cit:iz(lr is a^{just one, even though legaldefen:es} to it, it must^{act, as has been said LY} may be^op31 eminer]t Jurlcles,^{as an honestperson"'}

¶81

l'h,=^{Iespondent-Stateis directed} to relea^{se/ rttY} the gratuit/^{amount as determined by} the Control^irtg Authorit'7^,if il.hin^{three monthsto the appellant'}

¶82

The r\pex^{Clourtin the matter of "Gorakhpur Llniversityv} Dr Shitla^{PrasadNagendra" reported in 2001(6) Srll page} 591 has^{h.:lcj tlrat pension and gratuityare no lrlnger rra:ters of} any boun -y^{to be distributedby the Government'trut are} valuable ri9rr1,^{u.Or',ed and property in their harrds and any} delay in^{s{lttlern3nt and disbursement whereof should be viewed} seriously^{trnrl dealt with severally by imposing penaltyin t1e Form} of^paymerrt lf^nterest.

¶83

In Stat3 of^{"Jharkhand v Jitendra Kumar Sril'astawa"} reported n^{2(l 13 (12) SCC page 210, the Suprenre ('ourthas} heldthat[)enslonandgratuityarenotbounty,but]rroperty within th<:^{rne lning of Article 300-A of the Constitutiorr>f India'} It is^{quite app,)rentthat gratuity i! a propertywithirtht'r neaning} of Article 300'lr^{of the Constitutionof India and as st ch it is a} constitutilnal^{right which cannot be taken away (rxcept by} Authority ol' la<sup>'.

¶84

¶85

W.P.No.138S-267rr rt)'l

¶86

A x a e fr. Y. avP u a a al B k" 2 s 72 rev t e e n e t n t, t r to n r t n nd n el d n f

¶87

"18. Sub_Section (3A) of Section 7 oF the Gratuity Act is the most relevant provision for the determination of the present controversy. A perusal oF the sub_Section (3A) leaves no room for any doubt. that in case gratuity is not released to an employee within 30 days from the date the s me become payable under subsection (3) of secti on 7, the employee in question would be entiued to.,...simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the central Government from time to time for rhe Governm"., ,"r,^"JJffiHj:':* l":li"lj is, however, one exception to the payment of interest envisaged under sub Section (3) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act. The aforesaid exception is provided for in the proviso under sub_Section (3A) of Section 7. A perusar of the said proviso revears, that no interest would be payable .,.. if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the en obrained permission,;'';ffir"l1Iiil:",I.",.: i;; authority for the delayed payment on this ground...,, The exception contemplated in the proviso under sub_ Section (3A). of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act, incorporates two ingredients. Where the two

¶88

¶89

SN,J W.P.No.13ll5^{2t:7 >42Q23}

¶90

ingred ents^{contemplatedin the proviso Llnder slll)-} Sectiol^{(3li) are fulfilled, the concernedemployeer:ttn} be derried^{lnterestdespite delayedpayment3F g'atuity'} Havinll cat:fully examined^{the proviso urnders'Ll-} Section^{(31) of Section 7 of the GratuityAct, we: arr': of} the view, t^1.lt

¶91

(i) thr: f irst ingredient is, that^{payment of gra''uit1'to} the erlplo)'€e was^{delayedbecauseof some faultoF tlle} employee^lrimself.

¶92

(ii) The r;ercond ingredient^{is that the corrtro'lirg} autho-ity;lrould have^{approved suchwithholdintt of} gratuity (c,f the concerned^{employee)on the t)asi'iof} the al erlec 'ault of^{the employee himself.}

¶93

the None of the other sub-sections^{of Section7 of} Gratuit) Act, would have^{the effect oF negating} the conclus iorl clrawn^{hereinabove."}

¶94

L4, Learned counsel^{appearing onbehalf ofthe} petitaone{'in \r.P.No.26754 ot^{2O23 submitst[rat in view} of the orders <lated 12.06.2025^{passed in W'P'No 1385 of} 2023 no furthr:r orders are^{necessary in W'P'No'2"6754 ot} 2023. Bringing the said submission^{of the learrred counsel} appearing on^rbehalf of the^{petitionerin W.P'No'2'6754ot} 2023 on record which is not disputed^{by the learned} counsel appr:aring on behalf of the^{3'd resportdlent in}

¶95

¶96

¶97

sN,j W.p.No.1385_26754_2023

¶98

a'_\

¶99

W.p.No.2G7S4 of 2023 the said W.P.No.267S4 oJ 2O23 filed by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Peddapalli District, Telangana, is closed.

¶100

TAKI GIN TO cON SID TIo N:

¶101

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and,

¶102

b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Coltieries Company Limited appearing on behalf of the respondents and,

¶103

c) The order of this Court dated 25.Og.2O23 passed in W.p.No.26754 of 2023 (referred to and extracted above)

¶104

The writ petition No.1385 ot 2OZ3 is disposed of directing the respondents to forthwith release the gratuity amount due to the petitioner in accordance to law duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted above, within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, and the petitioner shafl vacate the subject quarters upon receipt of the said gratuity

¶105

11,

¶106

SN,J W. P.No.1385 i6754 2023

¶107

amount within a period of four(4) weeks there:rfter duly clearing all the arrears of rent due towards the quErrters to the Responrlr:nt Company, within a period of two (2) weeks there after on receipt of the gratuity amourrts due to the petition(lr as per petitioner's legal entitlemenlt as per Law, from the Respondent Company. However, therre shal! be no order as to costs.

¶108

Miscella rr-.ous applications, if any, pendin!l sl'r;rll stand

¶109

¶110

closed

¶111

SiD/-N.^SRIHARI PEPUTY^REGISTRAR '$ecr olt oFFlcER

¶112

//TRUE^COPY'

¶113

To 1. The Maraging^{t)irectorcum Vice-Chairmang-i!91'"n'Bhnu"n Fed Hills} 2. [,"*,.a?^nf,, "i !^{imt -t .:,1;fftBfi : x ]Jtlf fl u,u g,', d u,',,P e d d a p arr i} J, B:[?:^{N4;aneqer, RG-lll,singarenicollaries Ltd' Ramagundarr'Peddapalli} 4 gll 5 E.3 B^{3F li E tRi'Hltrffiss'yl 1l i3H 31 L%!l RE l'ii} "^{o'-''' '} " 6 3?"tJB^{I5'SflfJoooHANGouDsuNKAR''cENrR\L ci.vr sr'} COUNSEt. [C'F'UC] 7 Two CD^CoPie; PSK. GJP