Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.2(e) – Issue as to whether the service rendered as daily-wager before being regularized and given the status of a regular Government servant, can be reckoned, so as to invoke the provisions of the 1972 Act after the age of superannuation and retirement as State Govt. employee – High Court held that the provisions of 1972 Act have no application to a person who holds post under the State Govt. and is governed by any other Act and in particular, the 1976 Rules – Appellant relied on the recent decision of Supreme Court in Netram Sahu dealing with similar argument by the appellant therein – Held: s.2(e) of the 1972 Act provides that if a person holds a post under the Central Govt. or a State Govt. and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity, the provisions of the 1972 Act will have no application – Respondents are relying on the provisions of the 1976 Rules applicable to the post held by the appellant after being regularised on 01.09.08 – These Rules were not brought to the notice of Supreme Court in the case of Netram Sahu which decision is in conflict with the unreported decision dtd.16.01.09 of the coordinate Bench of Supreme Court in Teja Singh (C.A.No.292/09) – Ordinarily, the matter would have been proceeded to be decided on the construct of the relied upon Rules, but the exposition by the coordinate Bench of two Judges of Supreme Court in Teja Singh will also have to be taken note of, hence observing judicial propriety, the issue is referred to be considered by a larger Bench of three Judges – Registry to place the file before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench – Service Law – Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 – rr. 3(i), 5, 13, 16, 43(1), 44(1) & (2) – Judicial Discipline.
Referring the issue to be considered by a larger Bench of three Judges, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Notably, in Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. the Supreme Court had dealt with the judgment of the High Court in the case of Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. which in turn had relied on the exposition of Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Jammu vs. Teja Singh (unreported decision) and also the principle underlying the exposition in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi
(3) & Ors. However, none of the above decisions was referred to while answering the issue by this Court in Netram Sahu. In the case of Teja Singh, the coordinate Bench of two Judges of Supreme Court opined that a daily-rated Mazdoor who has been regularized but did not have qualifying service in terms of the service rules for extending retiral benefits to him, would not be entitled for payment of gratuity under the 1972 Act. The subsequent decision in Netram Sahu is in conflict with the said principle stated in the unreported decision of Supreme Court. Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in no uncertain terms provides that if a person holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity, the provisions of the 1972 Act will have no application. The respondents are relying on the provisions of the 1976 Rules applicable to the post held by the appellant after being regularised on 1.9.2008. These Rules were not brought to the notice of Supreme Court in the case of Netram Sahu. Ordinarily, the Court would have proceeded to decide the matter on the construct of the relied upon Rules, but as noted above, the exposition by the coordinate Bench of two Judges of this Court in the unreported decision of Teja Singh will also have to be taken note of and to observe judicial propriety, it is deemed appropriate to refer the issue under consideration to be considered by a larger Bench of three Judges. [Paras 4-7] [123-C-G; 124-A-D; F-G]
Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (2018) 5 SCC 430 : [2018] 3 SCR 682 ; Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (2014) SCC OnLine Chh 159 ; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Jammu v. Teja Singh Decision of Supreme Court dtd.16.1.2009 in Civil Appeal No. 292/2009 ; Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006]
3 SCR 953 ; Assistant Executive Engineer CNNL v. The Deputy Labour Commissioner & Appellate Authority, Bangalore & Ors. Decision dtd. 04.09.12 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. No. 15856/2012 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.