DHANSAI SAHU versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 120 · Decided: 21-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
DHANSAI SAHU
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 564 of 2020)
JANUARY 21, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
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.
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 120
120
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
121
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
DHANSAI SAHU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
Decision of Supreme Court dtd.16.1.2009 in Civil
Appeal 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.