NETRAM SAHU versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 682 · Decided: 23-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
682
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
NETRAM SAHU
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1254 of  2018)
MARCH 23, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.2(e) r/w s.2A – Qualified
service – Appellant rendered 22 years as daily wager and 3 years
as regular work charge employee i.e. he was regularised 3 years
prior to his retirement – Whether appellant can be said to have
rendered qualified service i.e. continuous service as specified in
s.2(e) r/w s.2A so as to make him eligible to claim gratuity as provided
under the Act from the State – Held: Appellant  actually rendered
total service for a period of 25 years and the State actually
regularized his services – Having regularized the services, the
appellant became entitled to claim its benefit for counting the period
of 22 years regardless of the post and the capacity on which he
worked for 22 years – Once the State regularized the services of
the appellant while he was in State services, the appellant became
entitled to count his total period of service for claiming the gratuity
amount subject to his proving continuous service of 5 years as
specified under s.2A of the Act which, in this case, the appellant
has duly proved – The statute 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.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  In the circumstances appearing in the case, it would
be the travesty of justice, if the appellant is denied his legitimate
claim of gratuity despite rendering “continuous service” for a
period of 25 years which even, according to the State, were
regularized.  The question as to from which date such services
were regularized was of no significance for calculating the total
length of service for claiming gratuity amount once the services
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 682
 682
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
683
were regularized by the State.  It was indeed the State who took
22 years to regularize the service of the appellant and went on
taking work from the appellant on payment of a meager salary of
Rs.2776/- per month for 22 long years uninterruptedly and only
in the last three years, the State started paying a salary of
Rs.11,107/- 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. 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.
[Paras 17, 18, 19] [687-A-E]
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) &
Ors, (2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953 –
held inapplicable.
Firm Kaluram Sitaram v. The Dominion of India
AIR 1954 Bombay 50 – approved.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 3 SCR 953         held inapplicable
Para 15
AIR 1954 Bombay 50
approved
Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1254
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2014 of the High Court
of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in WA No. 240 of 2014.
Kiran Kumar Jaipuriar, Anshuman Shrivastava, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Selvin Raja, Avnish M. Oza, Advs. for
the Respondents.
NETRAM SAHU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
684
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is directed
against the final judgment and order dated 01.08.2014 passed by the
High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal No.240 of 2014
whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal
filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the judgment and order dated
16.12.2013 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ
Petition(L) No.178 of 2013 by which the Single Judge allowed the petition
preferred by the respondents herein and set aside the orders of the
Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority by which the  claim of t

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