- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6208 WP No. 112549 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 112549 OF 2019 (L-PG) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NEKRTC, HOSPETE DIVISION, HOSPETE, THE PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NEKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, KALABURGI-585 101. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: MANIK RAO S/O VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O: CHANDRAKI POST, TQ: YADGIRI, DIST: YADAGIRI-585 201. … RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6208 WP No. 112549 of 2019 ORAL ORDER Sri.Shivakumar S.Badawadagi., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. 2. An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 11.06.2020. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person. 3. The short facts are these: The respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the establishment of Corporation in 1969. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2003. The Corporation determined the gratuity and paid the same accordingly. However, the respondent filed an application claiming difference in gratuity before the Controlling Authority on 21.06.2011. The Controlling Authority vide order dated:22.02.2018 determined the gratuity and directed the Corporation to pay the same. Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the Corporation preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6208 WP No. 112549 of 2019 vide order dated:13.05.2019 rejected the appeal. The orders of the Gratuity Authorities are called into question in this Writ Petition by the Corporation on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. Sri.Shivakumar S.Badawadagi., counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation in presenting his arguments vehemently contended that the Controlling Authority erred in entertaining the application. He argued by saying that the respondent attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2003, however, he filed an application in 2011 i.e., on 21.06.2011. Hence, there is an inordinate delay in filing the application claiming difference in gratuity. Counsel therefore, submits that the orders of the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be set aside. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 6. The point that requires consideration is whether the Controlling Authority is justified in entertaining the application claiming difference in gratuity beyond the period of limitation? - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6208 WP No. 112549 of 2019 7. It is pertinent to note that Rule 10 of Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 and also Rule 10 of Karnataka Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 prescribes a time frame of 90 days to file an application claiming difference in gratuity. If the application is filed beyond 90 days, the Controlling Authority may accept the application on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant after the expiry of the specified period. 8. Reverting to the facts of the case, the workman attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2003. He filed an application claiming difference in gratuity on 21.06.2011. The respondent filed an application seeking condonation of delay stating that he requested the Corporation to pay the difference in gratuity, but the Corporation did not respond to his request, hence there is a delay. The Corporation filed detail objections and prayed for dismissal of the application on the grounds of delay and laches. The Controlling Authority condoned the delay on the ground that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a beneficial legislation and the denial of the gratuity would cause prejudice and injustice to the workman. This is incorrect. The reason is apparent. The applicant was not diligent in approaching the Authority well in time. Hence, the Controlling Authority ought to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6208 WP No. 112549 of 2019 have considered the financial repercussions on the Corporation. Hence, the reason assigned by the Controlling Authority to condone the delay is unsustainable in law. As already noted above, the respondent has attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2003. However, he filed an application on 21.06.2011. There is an inordinate delay of almost eight years. Therefore, in my view, the application filed by the respondent is liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches. Since the application is rejected on the grounds of delay and laches, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case. Accordingly, it is rejected. For the reasons stated above, the orders of the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. 9. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:22.02.2018 passed by the Controlling Authority in vide Annexure-C and consequently the order dated:13.05.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority vide Annexure-E are quashed. 10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6208 WP No. 112549 of 2019 Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, amount in deposit, if any, is directed to be released/ refunded in favor of the Corporation. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP/RH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42