Gujarat High Court
Chandrika Pathubhai Chaudhary vs Manage Through Shree Akhil Aanjana ... on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11096/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11096 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
CHANDRIKA PATHUBHAI CHAUDHARY
Versus
MANAGE THROUGH SHREE AKHIL AANJANA KELVANI MANDAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEEP S CHACHAN(10738) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRAKASHKUMAR R VAGHELA(12012) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAJESHKUMAR M VAGHELA(10099) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 08/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the learned Controlling Authority dated 08.10.2024 and confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority on 02.07.2025, holding that the petitioner is entitled to the difference of gratuity in the amount of Rs. 27,291/- with 10% interest from 30.03.2024.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:53:51 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11096/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that she joined the respondent as an Assistant Teacher in the pri- mary school, namely J.M. Chaudary Sarvajanik Kanya Vidhyalaya. She joined on 04.03.1991 and retired on 31.05.2023 on attaining the age of superannuation. Upon her retirement, the payment of gratuity was made by the respondent to the tune of Rs.2,68,389/-. However, the claim was made by the present peti- tioner that her last drawn basic wage was Rs. 25,481/- and dearness allowance was Rs. 12,741/-, and therefore, she was entitled to gratuity of Rs.7,05,636/-. Instead, the back salary was consid- ered by the respondent employer as Rs. 10,684/- plus dearness allowance of Rs.5,342/-, and therefore, the difference amount was required to be paid to her. The learned Controlling Authority, after considering the documentary evidence, more particularly the last salary certificate, directed the respondent to pay the difference of gratuity of Rs.27,291/- with 10% interest from the date of the application. The same was chal- lenged before the learned Appellate Authority, which also confirmed the order passed by the learned Con- trolling Authority, and the said order is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Vaghela for the peti-
tioner.
Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:53:51 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11096/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
4. Learned advocate Mr. Vaghela submits that though the Bank Statement suggesting the amount of salary credited in the account of the present petitioner as Rs.38,970/- was produced, the learned controlling au- thority, without considering the same, held that the petitioner's basic pay was Rs.10,684/- and calculated the salary on that basis. Learned advocate Mr. Vaghela further submits that as the petitioner is enti- tled to the amount towards gratuity of Rs.7,05,636/-, the learned authority, without considering the same, has passed the impugned order, and therefore, the same is required to be interfered with, and the orders passed by both the authorities are required to be set aside.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate and, on referring to the reasons as- signed by the learned authority, it appears that the claim was made for the amount of gratuity on the ba- sis of the bank statement suggesting that the amount qua salary deposited was Rs. 38,970/-. The respondent appeared before the learned Controlling Authority and produced the last salary certificate showing that the basic pay of the petitioner was Rs. 10,684/- and the Dearness Allowance was Rs. 5,342/-. The learned Controlling Authority considered the said certificate and directed the respondent to pay the Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:53:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11096/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined difference amount of Rs. 27,291/- with interest at the rate of 10% from the date of the application.
6. On referring to the Bank Statement, which is part of the record, it appears that the amount of Rs.38,970/- was credited each month; however, that does not re- flect whether it was the basic pay or the gross salary of the petitioner. In that background, the Controlling Authority is justified in passing the impugned order, and therefore, no interference is required.
7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:53:51 IST 2025