Madras High Court
P. Manivannan vs Ministry Of Finance on 30 June, 2025
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
and
W.M.P. Nos.156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 603 and 604 of 2022
and W.M.P. Nos.9651, 9652, 9654 and 9659 of 2024
1. P. Manivannan
2. P. Sundaravadivelu
3. V. Rajendran
4. S. Syed Musheer Ahmed
5. N. Murugesan .. Petitioners common in
W.P. Nos.143 & 558 / 2022
1. S. Balu
2. G. Pannerselvam
3. R. Sekar
4. N. Thambidurai
5. S. Manogaran
6. R. Annamalai
7. K. Saminathan
8. K. Sockalingam
9. V.C. Madhu
10. A. Palani
11. Swami Srinivasa Rao .. Petitioners common in
W.P. Nos.144 & 146 / 2022
vs.
1. Ministry of Finance
Department of Public Enterprises,
represented by its Under Secretary,
Lodi Road, CGO Complex,
Block No.14, New Delhi - 110 003.
1/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
2. Madras Fertilizers Limited,
represented by its Chairman &
Managing Director,
Manali, Chennai - 600 068.
3. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan, Chennai - 600 006. .. Respondents common in
all W.Ps.
4. Department of Fertilizers,
Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers,
represented by its Secretary,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110 001 (INDIA). .. 4th Respondent in
[impleaded as per the order dated 28.03.2024 in W.P. No.558/2022
W.M.P. No.9657/2024 in W.P. No.558/2022]
PRAYER in W.P. No.143 of 2022: This Writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the Office Memorandum dated
10.07.2018 issued by the 1st respondent and to quash the same to the extent it
makes the payment of the enhanced gratuity under the Office Memorandum
dated 03.08.2017 subject to the 'affordability' of the CPSEs concerned
effective for the period from 01.01.2017 to 28.03.2018 and to consequently
direct the 2nd respondent to pay the petitioners the enhanced gratuity under
the Office Memoranudm dated 03.08.2017 issued by the 1st respondent.
PRAYER in W.P. No.558 of 2022: This Writ petition filed under Article
2/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling
for the records of the Impugned order dated 01.11.2021 in Gratuity Appeal
Nos.5, 7-10 / 2021 passed by the 3rd respondent and to quash the same as
being contrary to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
PRAYER in W.P. No.144 of 2022: This Writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling
for the records of the Impugned order dated 31.03.2021 in Gratuity Appeal
Nos.74, 75, 77, 78, 80-82, 87, 88, 90 and 92 / 2020 passed by the 3rd
respondent and to quash the same as being contrary to the provisions of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
PRAYER in W.P. No.146 of 2022: This Writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the Office Memorandum dated
10.07.2018 in No.W-02/0036/2018-DPE (WC) - GL - XIX / 18 issued by the
1st respondent and to quash the same to the extent it makes the payment of
the enhanced gratuity under the Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2017
subject to the affordability of the CPSEs concerned effective for the period
3/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
from 01.01.2017 to 28.03.2018 and to consequently direct the 2nd respondent
to pay the petitioners the enhanced gratuity under the Office Memorandum
dated 03.08.2017 issued by the 1st respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr. Pavan Kumar.G.
For Respondent : Mr. C. Samivel, SPL GSC,
[For R1 & R4]
Notice served, No appearance
[for R2]
Mr. B. Sudhir Kumar, SPC [for R3]
COMMON ORDER
These Writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the Gratuity Appeal Nos.5, 7-10 / 2021 and Gratuity Appeal Nos.74, 75, 77, 78, 80-82, 87, 88, 90 and 92 / 2020 passed by the 3rd respondent and to quash the Official Memorandum issued by the 1st respondent dated 10.07.2018 to the extent it makes the payment of the enhanced gratuity under the Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 that subject to the affordability of the CPSEs concerned effective for the period from 01.01.2017 to 28.03.2018 and to consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pay the petitioners the enhanced gratuity under the Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 issued by the 1st respondent.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that these petitioners are the erstwhile employees of the 2nd respondent, a Central 4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 Public Sector Enterprise ("CPSE") and they retired from service during the period between 01.01.2017 to 28.03.2018 and they have an average of 30 years of service in the 2nd respondent company and therefore, they are entitled to receive gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Section 4(3) of Payment of Gratuity Act was amended with effect from 29.03.2018 by enhancing maximum amount of gratuity as Rs.20 lakhs. The 1st respondent issued an Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 by enhancing the Gratuity amount from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs with effect from 01.01.2017. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a Clarification Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 stating that the Payment of Gratuity under the DPE guidelines dated 03.08.2017 is subject to 'affordability' of the CPSEs concerned effective for the period from 01.01.2017 till 28.03.2018 in respect of Executives and Non-Unionised Supervisors of CPSEs on IDA pay pattern, where pay has been revised with effect from 01.01.2017. In terms of Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017, the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced payment of Gratuity amount of Rs.20 lakhs as they retired from service under the 2nd respondent company during the period from 01.01.2017 to 28.03.2018. The 2nd respondent, being a CPSE, is bound by the said Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017. However, refused to provide 5/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 enhanced Gratuity to the petitioners.
2.1. In the meantime, an Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 has been issued by clarifying that the enhanced Gratuity of Rs.20 lakhs shall be applicable subject to the affordability of the CPSE concerned. The impugned Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 issued with retrospective effect, thereby, affecting the vested and substantive rights of the petitioners to receive the enhanced Gratuity of Rs.20 lakhs as per the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017. Therefore, the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent through the Madras Fertilizers Retired Employees Welfare Association for the payment of the enhanced gratuity under the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 and the same was refused vide a letter dated 08.08.2018. Therefore, the petitioners approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the same were dismissed. The petitioners filed Appeals before the 3rd respondent and the same were also dismissed vide orders dated 31.03.2021 and 01.11.2021. The petitioners challenged the Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 on the ground that the previous Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 has created vested and substantive rights to the petitioners to receive the enhanced 6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 Gratuity of Rs.20 lakhs without any condition.
2.2. The Gratuity is a retiral benefit and is a constitutional right and the same cannot be taken away retrospectively by the Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018. The retiral benefit like Gratuity payable to the petitioners cannot be subject to 'affordability' criteria or the profitability of the 2nd respondent company. Even as per the Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, if under any Award or agreement or contract with the employer, an employee is entitled to a higher gratuity. Therefore, as per the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.20 lakhs as Gratuity amount.
2.3. The petitioners who superannuated between 01.01.2017 and 28.03.2018, i.e., before the issuance of the Official Memorandum of 10.07.2018, also had a legitimate expectation and accrued right to receive the enhanced Gratuity amount of Rs.20 lakhs and the same stood crystallized on the issuance of the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017. Therefore, the impugned Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 is also violative of the settled principles of legitimate expectation. The impugned Official 7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 cannot operate retrospectively to deny the petitioners to receive the enhanced Gratuity. The other CPSEs like NLC, BHEL etc., have implemented the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 and paid the enhanced Gratuity amount. Therefore, the criteria 'affordability' is against law and same has to be set aside.
2.4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments:-
2.4.1. Electronics Corporation of India Limited vs. The Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Ors in Writ Appeal No.887 of 2004 - Telangana High Court.
2.4.2. Ahmedabad (P) Primary Teachers' Association vs. Administrative Officer reported in (2004) 1 SCC 755.
2.4.3. State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210.
2.4.4. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit vs. Manu reported in (2023) 19 SCC 30.
2.4.5. V. Vincent Velankanni v. Union of India reported in 8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 2024 SCC Online SC 2642.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the petitioners are not entitled to the enhanced Gratuity amount as a matter of right. The Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act was amended only on 29.03.2018. Therefore, after the amendment of Payment of Gratuity Act, by enhancing the amount of Rs.20 lakhs, the retired persons are entitled to the said amount. The 1st respondent issued an Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 by enhancing the Gratuity amount from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs and thereafter, they received some clarifications from the stakeholders, thereby, issued clarifications through an Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 that the enhancement of Gratuity amount is subject to the affordability of the CPSEs concerned. Therefore, based on the clarifications issued by the 1st respondent, the enhancement of the Gratuity amount is subject to the affordability of the CPSE. The said Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 is issued only to clarify the applicability of the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017. The persons, who retired during the period between 01.01.2017 and 28.03.2018, will get enhanced Gratuity amount subject to the affordability of the CPSEs. Therefore, the Official 9/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 is only clarification and the same is issued to clarify the earlier Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017. Therefore, the present Writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
4. No representation for the 2nd respondent and the name of the 2nd respondent is printed in the Cause List.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that the petitioners filed applications for enhanced Gratuity amount. As per the Official Memorandum issued by the 1st respondent dated 03.08.2017, the Gratuity amount was enhanced from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs. But the 1st respondent issued clarifications through an Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 that the enhanced Gratuity amount is subject to the affordability of the CPSEs concerned. The 2nd respondent incurred loss for the preceeding
3 years. Therefore, there is no affordability to enhance the Gratuity amount from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs. As per the clarification for the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017, the enhanced Gratuity amount is subject to the affordability. Therefore, the Authority has passed a reasoned order and the present petitions are liable to be dismissed.
10/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.
6. In this case, there is no dispute that these petitioners are the erstwhile employees of the 2nd respondent company and they retired from service during the period between 01.01.2017 and 28.03.2018. As per Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the retired employees during the period between 01.07.2017 to 28.03.2018, are entitled to Rs.10 lakhs as Gratuity. The 1st respondent issued an Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 by enhancing the Gratuity amount from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs. While perusing the above said Official Memorandum, there are no any restrictions or any condition to avail the benefits. In the meantime, the Payment of Gratuity Act was amended and the Gratuity amount was enhanced from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs with effect from 29.03.2018. Thereafter on 10.07.2018, the 1st respondent had issued an another Official Memorandum clarifying the Official Memorandum issued on 03.08.2017 that the payment of Gratuity for the period between 01.01.2017 and 28.03.2018 is subject to affordability of the CPSEs concerned in respect of Executives and Non-Unionised Supervisors of CPSEs on IDA pay pattern, where, pay has been revised with 11/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 effect from 01.01.2017.
7. The petitioner's contention is that they are entitled to the benefits under the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017. In that Official Memorandum, there is no restriction or any condition imposed. While so, after amending the Act and after one year from the date of previous Official Memorandum, that too after retirement of the petitioner, a Clarification Official Memorandum giving retrospective effect to the above said Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2107 was issued. Once an Official Memorandum is issued by the 1st respondent, in respect of CPSEs, by enhancing the Gratuity amount from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs, it is the duty of the CPSEs concerned to follow and obey the Official Memorandum. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced Gratuity amount as per the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017.
8. The clarification was issued only in the month of July 2018. Based on the earlier Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017, there is a legitimate expectation among the petitioners in getting the enhanced Gratuity amount. As per the clarification Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018, the 12/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 enhanced Gratuity amount is subject to the affordability of the CPSEs concerned. The said condition cannot be imposed retrosectively and it could be prospectively as the previous Official Memorandum did nto impose any condition of affordability. Since on the date of issuance of the Clarification Official Memorandum on 10.07.2018, the Payment of Gratuity Act was amended with an enhancement of Rs.20 lakhs. The above said Official Memorandum cannot be given retrospective effect. Even prior to the amendment of the Payment of Gratuity Act, as per Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, if under any Award or agreement or contract with the employer, an employee is entitled to a higher gratuity than ten lakh rupees, the employee shall be eligible to receive such higher gratuity and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to a maximum amount as per the agreement. As per the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017, the 1st respondent enhanced the Gratuity amount from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs. Therefore, as per Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioners are entitled to enhanced gratuity. As far as the binding nature of the Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 is concerned, it cannot be given retrospective effect.
13/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
9. At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon the judgments in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit vs. manu reported in (2023) 19 SCC 30 and V. Vincent Velankanni vs. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2642.
9.1. In Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit vs. manu reported in (2023) 19 SCC 30, it has been held as follows:-
38. From the aforesaid authorities, the following principles could be culled out.
38.1. If a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous law, retrospective operation thereof may be permitted. 38.2. In order for a subsequent order / provision / amendment to be considered as clarificatory of the previous law, the pre-amended law ought to have been vague or ambiguous. It is only when it would be impossible to reasonably interpret a provision unless an amendment is read into it, that the amendment is considered to be a clarification or a declaration of the previous law and therefore applied retrospectively.
38.3. An explanation / clarification may not expand or alter the scope of the original provision.
38.4. Merely because a provision is described as a clarification / explanation, the Court is not bound by the said statement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply prospectively.
9.2. In V. Vincent Velankanni vs. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2642, it has been held as follows:-
43. If a Government Order is treated to be in the nature of a clarification of an earlier Government Order, it may be made applicable retrospectively. Conversely, if a subsequent Government Order is held to be a modification / amendment of the earlier 14/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 Government Order, its application would be prospective as retrosepective application thereof would result in withdrawal of vested rights which is impermissible in law and the same may also entail recoveries to be made. The principles in this regard were culled out by this Court in a recent judgment of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu in the following terms:___"
10. In view of the above said judgments, it is clear that merely because a provision is described as a clarification / explanation, the Court is not bound by the said statement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply prospectively. If the Government Order is treated in the nature of clarification of an earlier Government Order, it may be made applicable retrospectively. Conversely, if a subsequent Government Order is held to be a modification / amendment of the earlier Government Order, its application would be prospective as retrosepective application thereof would result in withdrawal of vested rights which is impermissible in law and the same may also entail recoveries to be made. While so, it is clear that the clarification Government Order cannot, in any way, a modification of the earlier Government order. In the case on hand, without any condition, the earlier order Official Memorandum was issued. Now, the clarification order modified the entire scheme and the word "subject to affordability" was 15/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 introduced and the same would amounts to modification and the same cannot be permitted. When the applications were presented before the amendment of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Authority failed to consider that the clarificaiton was issued after the amendment of the Act, that too, by the time, the Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 has created a vested right and substantial right to the petitioners to receive the enhanced gratuity of Rs.20 lakhs and the right to legitimate expectation of the petitioners accures from the date of the earlier Official Memorandum and it cannot be clarified by way of imposing conditions. Even as per amended Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioners are entitled to get higher gratuity than the prescribed limit of Rs.10 lakhs.
At this juncture, it is relevant to rely the judgment of High Court of Telangana in Electronics Corporation of India Limited vs. The Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Ors in Writ Appeal No.887 of 2004 dated 19.08.2024, wherein the High Court of Telangana has held as follows:-
"27. Now we may advert to the second issue, whether the office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 is an award or agreement or contract within the meaning of Section 4(5) of the Act.
28. It is well settled legal proposition that the Act is a beneficial statute. When two views are possible, having regard to purpose the Act seeks to achieve being a social welfare legislation, it may be construed in favour of workman (see Regional Director, 16/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 ESI Corporation vs. Ramanuja Match Industries 8 and Beed District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra 9). It is equally well settled principle of statutory interpretation that Court has to evolve concept of purposive interpretation while interpreting with a social welfare legislation. The Acts aimed at social amelioration giving benefits for the have-nots should receive liberal construction. It is the duty of the Court to give such a construction to a statute as would promote the purpose of object of the Act. A construction which promotes the purpose of the legislation should be preferred to a literal construction. A construction which would defeat the rights of have-nots should be avoided (see Bharat Singh vs. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, (1985) 1 SCC 218 (2006) 8 SCC 514 New Delhi 10 and X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi 11). A three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. vs. Rabindranath Choubey 12 ) while interpreting Section 4(1) and Section 4(6) of the Act has held that aforesaid provisions have to be given purposive interpretation.
......
33. The Act is a piece of beneficial legislation and its provisions have to be interpreted liberally and in a purposive manner. Therefore, the expression "agreement" used in Section 4(5) of the Act has also to be construed liberally in a purposive manner so as to protect the rights of the employees to receive better terms of gratuity. Therefore, we hold that office memorandum dated 26.11.2008 is an agreement within the meaning of Section 4(5) of the Act. The second issue is also answered in the affirmative".
Therefore, the Appellate Authority also failed to consider that the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 creates rights of vested and legitimate expectations to the petitioners and after the amendment of the main Act, they issued clarification. In this context, it is relevant to rely the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad (P) Primary Teachers' Assn. vs. Administrative Officer reported in (2004) 1 SCC 755, wherein the 17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Gratuity is an amount paid unconnected with any consideration and not resting upon it, and has to be considered as something given freely, voluntarily or without recompense. It is sort of financial assistance to tide over post-retiral hardships and inconveniences. Therefore, in view of the above, gratuity can never be linked to the profitability or financial performance of the 2nd respondent.
11. Since the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 was issued much earlier, the 'affodability' has no role to play in awarding enhanced payment of Gratuity to the petitioners by referring the subsequent Official Memorandum, which was issued long back in the month of July 2018, that too by way of modification, after amendment of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore, the Payment of Gratuity Authorities are wrong in holding that there is a loss caused to the 2nd respondent company during the period of preceeding years prior to 2017-18 and the same cannot be accepted.
12. It is also not disputed that based on the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017, the other CPSEs viz., NLL, BHEL have paid the enhanced Gratuity amount to the persons, who retired from service during the period 18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 between 01.01.2017 and 28.03.2018. Thefore, these petitioners, who are the employees of CPSEs cannot alter their legitimate expectation based on the subsequent Official Memorandum and the affordability criteria is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the order passed by the Payment of Gratuity Authorities declining to enhance the Gratuity amount from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs is against law and the same are liable to be quashed.
13. As far as the Clause 2(a) in clarification Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 is concerned, it is against law and the same is quashed. Since the affordability clause is quashed in the Clarification Official Memorandum, the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced gratuity amount of Rs.20 lakhs.
13. Accordingly, these Writ petitions are allowed. The Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 issued by the 1st respondent to the extent "it makes the payment of the enhanced gratuity under the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 subject to the 'affordability' of the CPSEs concerned effective for the period from 01.01.2017 to 28.03.2018", is quashed and the 19/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 order dated 01.11.2021 in Gratuity Appeal Nos.5, 7-10 / 2021 and the order dated 31.03.2021 in Gratuity Appeal Nos.74, 75, 77, 78, 80-82, 87, 88, 90 and 92 / 2020 are set aside and the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced Gratuity amount of Rs.20 lakhs as per the Official Memorandum dated 03.08.2017. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
30.06.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order mjs To
1. Ministry of Finance Department of Public Enterprises, represented by its Under Secretary, Lodi Road, CGO Complex, Block No.14, New Delhi - 110 003.
2. Madras Fertilizers Limited, represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Manali, Chennai - 600 068.
3. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), 5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan, Chennai - 600 006.
P. DHANABAL, J., mjs 20/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm ) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022
4. Department of Fertilizers, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, represented by its Secretary, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110 001 (INDIA) W.P. Nos.143, 144, 146 and 558 of 2022 30.06.2025 21/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )