1 ^F^ IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATriSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2983 of 2006 Petitioner South Eastem Coalfields Lunited Tbrough its Chaii'maa cuia Man^ing Dircctor, SECL, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Tbe AppeHate Authority under fhe Paynient ofGratuily Act, 1972, Jabalpur (M.P,). The Controlling Aufhority under the Payinent Gratuity Act, 1972, Assistant Labour Coinnussioner, (Central}, Shalidol (M.P.). K. K. Singh, Son of Late Devendraaath Singh, Resident ofPlot No.5, Mahima Bihar, Ring Road No.2 Bilaspur (C.G.) •2,. 3. WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTIQN QF INDIA^ (SB: Honlale Shri Satish K. Agnifaotri J.) Shri P. S. Koshy, Advocate wiffci Shri Viaod DeshmuMt, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Ajay Barik, Advocate for the respoadents No. 1 aad 2. Shri Gaiy Mukbopadhyay, Advocate for fhe respondent No.3. OfiDJ&R (Passed on fhis 20th Day ofMarch, 2009) 1. The petitioner uapugns the order dated 10.1.2006 (Annexure P/2), passed by the respondent No.2, which was affinned by fhe order dated 27.4.2006 (Aimexure P/l), passed by the respondent No. 1. 2. Learaed counsel appeariag for the petitioner subinits that ttie respondent No.3 (Shri K. K. Siugh) was an eiaployee of the Soutfa Eastem Coal Field Ltd. Bilaspur. He was initiaUy appointed on 5.11.1976 aad was retired on superaniiuation on 31.7.2003. Whfle the respondeut No.3 was posted as Deputy Chief Personal Maaager, Ra^arh area, a charge sheet dated 5.12.1995 was issued to him. After fuU-fledged departmental enqiuiy, a show cause notice was issued along wifti enquuy report to the respondent No.3 on 18.8.2000. 3. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 filed Writ Petition No. 5684/2000 against the show cause notice dated 18.8.2000, whereia stay was graated' by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpi.iT on 10.10.2000, wbich was vacated later on 5.12.2003. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to ftie respondent No.3, wbich was repUed by him. Haviag consMered fhe entire records offhe case, iacluding fhe reply of fhe respondent No.3, the Chairmau cuin MEuuaging Ditector, Disciplinary Authority, Coal India Lmiited held ttaat fhe respondent No.3 has coiunutted gross inisconduct of proved char^es and as such deserves disinissal from service but lookuig to his retirement, it was directed to forteit fhe whole amount of gratuity ui terms offhe provisions of Sub CIause (b) of Clause 6 of Section 4 of fhe Payment of Gratuily Act, 1972. 4. After retirement fhe respondent No.3 filed an application before the ControUiag Authority, Under Payaient of Gratuity Act, 1972, Sahdol (M.P.) on 25.2.2006 for graat of gratuity. That application was aUowed by order dated 3rd January 2006 (Annexure P/2) aud tlie petitioner was directed to pay an aiaoun.t of Rs. 3,50,000/- wifh simple iaterest at the rate of 9% p.a. to the respondent No.3. 5. Beiag aggrieved, fhe petitioner filed aa appeal befbre fhe appellate autliority, Jabalpiir (M.P.), wtaich was dismissed by order dated 27th April, 2006, affirmiag the order passed by the ControUiag Authority. However, the rate of iuterest was enhanced froiu 9% to 10%. Thus, the petitioaer Iias ffled this petition chaISengiug the orders dated 3Id Jaauary, 200< (Annexure P/2) and fbe order dated 27th Aprfl, 2006. 6. 7. 8. Thalmr Leamed counsel appearmg for the respondent No.3 placing reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Sin^ti Gill Vs. Bharat Cobing.Coal Ltd. and otlaers1 subinits fhat fhe petition is liable to be disniissed, wbereia it is held thafc- "11. Power to withhold penalty (sic grataity) contaitied in Rule 34.3 ofthe Rules inust be subject to fhe provisions offhe Act. Grattdty becoines payable as soon as fhe eiuployee retires. The ordy condition therefore is rendition. of five years' continuous service. 12. A statutoiy right accrued, tfaus, cannot be impaired by reason of a rule which does not have the force of a statute. It wfll bear repetition to state that the Rulcs frained by Respondent 1 or its holding company are not statutoiy in iiature. Tbe Rules iu any event do not provide fbr wifhholding ofretiral benefits or grattiity.''' Learued counsel appearfng for the petitioner fairly aduuts fhat fhe decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court iu Jaswant Singh CfflU (supra) applies to fhe present case ia toto, wherein it was further held that the controUing authorily was exercising a power under a statute and, therefore, it having been authorized to adininister the provisions of ftie Act was entifted to detemiiae as to whefher anv case has been inade out to deny the right of the respondent No.3 to obtaia the amount of gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the Act In view of the foregoiag, fhe petition descrves to be aad is dismissed. In fb.e facts of the case, there shaU be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 {(2007) 1 SCC 663 BB' SL[\^