Key Focus for Law Aspirants: Service Law | Payment of Gratuity Act | Constitutional Welfare Jurisprudence
In a significant ruling reinforcing the statutory and social security nature of gratuity and terminal benefits, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that financial incapacity of an employer cannot be used as a defence to deny gratuity, leave encashment, and other post-retiral dues. The Court further directed payment of 10% interest on delayed gratuity, emphasising that such rights are mandatory and enforceable by law.
The judgment was delivered on 2 January 2026 by Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam in W.P. No. 20248 of 2015.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Mr. Rao, retired on 30 September 2011 after an unblemished career spanning more than three decades. Despite his clean service record, he was denied:
Salary arrears for:
- May 2004 – June 2005 (14 months)
- June 2007 – February 2009 (21 months)
Terminal benefits including:
- Gratuity
- Leave encashment
The total unpaid amount came to ₹2.28 lakh.
Although Mr. Rao received partial gratuity and leave encashment for a brief deputation period with a District Central Cooperative Bank (DCCB), his primary employer, the Sambara Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (PACS), failed to release its share, citing lack of funds.
Aggrieved, Mr. Rao approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Core Legal Issue Before the Court
Whether non-payment of gratuity and leave encashment to a retired employee, without any legal or disciplinary impediment, is legally permissible?
Service History of the Petitioner
- Joined PACS in 1977
- Served as Paid Secretary in multiple cooperative societies
- Promoted as Special Category Employee in DCCB on 1 March 2009
- Retired on attaining superannuation on 30 September 2011
- No disciplinary proceedings, financial irregularities, or stigma at any stage
The Court categorically noted that the petitioner retired without any blemish or legal impediment.
Andhra Pradesh High Court’s Analysis
Gratuity and Terminal Benefits Are Statutory Rights
The Court held that gratuity, leave encashment, and other terminal benefits are not discretionary payments, but statutory entitlements flowing from social welfare legislation.
“The right to receive gratuity is a statutory right and cannot be taken away except by following the procedure established under law.”
Applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
Referring to Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Court observed:
- An employee who has rendered continuous service of not less than five years is entitled to gratuity upon retirement or superannuation
- Gratuity can be withheld only in exceptional circumstances expressly provided by law
- None of those exceptions applied in the present case
Delay in Payment Mandates Interest – Section 7 of the Act
Under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the employer must:
- Determine and pay gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable
- Pay interest for any delay beyond this period
The Court clarified that:
“The right to interest on delayed payment of gratuity is statutory in nature and not subject to the discretion of the employer.”
Financial Inability Is Not a Valid Defence
Rejecting the employer’s plea of financial hardship, the Court held:
“A mere financial incapacity or paucity of funds cannot be a valid defence for non-fulfilment of statutory obligations.”
Once services have been taken from an employee, the employer is legally bound to honour post-retiral dues.
Important Case Laws Relied Upon
Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar
The Supreme Court held that the State and its instrumentalities act in a fiduciary capacity and are duty-bound to enforce social welfare legislations, including labour laws.
H. Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corp. Ltd.
(2003) 3 SCC 40
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act contains a clear mandate for timely payment and interest on delay.
Gagan Bihari Pristy v. Paradip Port Trust
SLP (C) No. 20740 of 2022 (Decided on 03.03.2025)
The Apex Court awarded 10% interest on delayed gratuity, holding that unjustified delay must financially compensate the retiree.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma
2025 SCC OnLine SC 596
The Supreme Court reiterated that pension and retiral benefits are not a charity or bounty, but enforceable legal rights.
Final Directions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Court allowed the writ petition and directed:
Respondents to pay:
- ₹1,17,063 (remaining gratuity and leave encashment)
- Interest: 10% per annum from the date the amount became payable till actual payment
- Time limit: Within 10 weeks from receipt of the order
The related contempt proceedings were closed with liberty to the petitioner to seek further legal remedies in case of non-compliance.
Key Takeaways for Law Aspirants
- Gratuity and terminal benefits are statutory rights
- Financial hardship of the employer is not a legal defence
- Interest on delayed gratuity is mandatory, not discretionary
- Courts consistently uphold the welfare nature of labour laws
- Pension and post-retiral benefits are not acts of charity
Exam Relevance
- Service Law
- Labour & Industrial Law
- Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
- Constitutional Principles of Welfare State
- Judicial Review under Article 226
India’s Four Labour Codes to Come Into Effect from 21 November 2025: A Complete Legal Overview
