HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 25489 of 2026 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for petitioner Corporation and Sri Rudra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioner has claimed that respondent-workman was appointed with petitioner-Corporation on 23.04.1984 (vide letter dated 19.04.1984) as Cleaner and has attained superannuation on 30.04.2018 from the post of Welder-II. On retirement, petitioner-Corporation calculated gratuity of an amount of Rs. 4,64,214/- and was paid through cheque dated 24.07.2018. Subsequently, benefit of 7th Pay Commission was also extended and difference of amount of gratuity was quantified at Rs. 63,989/- was also paid to said respondent on 20.05.2019. Admittedly, contesting respondent has not taken any objection on aforesaid payment of amount. 3. The contesting respondent filed a claim on 11.05.2019 before Controlling Authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for payment of unpaid gratuity of Rs. 2,37,324/- for the period when said respondent was appointed on 01.04.1980 as Welder and on 19.04.1984, he was declared permanent was not considered for payment of gratuity on basis of last salary paid. 4. During proceedings, it appears that petitioner-Corporation did not produce any relevant document and proceedings proceeded ex-parte and accordingly, Controlling Authority vide an order dated 30.06.2023 determined total gratuity of Rs. 6,08,233/- and that out of which Rs. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sunil Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rudra Pratap Singh Up State Road Transport Corporation .....Petitioner(s) Ayodhya Prasad And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 5,28,203/- was already paid, therefore, a direction was passed for payment of remaining amount of Rs. 80,030/- toward gratuity. The Corporation filed an appeal against said order that petitioner remained daily wager between 01.04.1980 and 19.04.1984, therefore, in terms of Government Order dated 20.01.2019, if at all gratuity is to be paid, calculation is to make on basis of average salary of last three months of said period as well as burden to prove that said employee has worked 240 days in a calendar year was upon said employee, however, Authorities have wrongly shifted the burden to prove it on employer i.e. Corporation. 5. I have considered submissions and perused the records. 6. Before entering into merit of case, Court is of the view that since amount is of only Rs. 80,000/-, therefore, keeping in view a very small amount, Court does not find any interference except direction of interest of 8% of it, therefore, impugned orders are modified to that extent. It has been informed that said amount was deposited and therefore, respondent- workman will be at liberty to file appropriate application for its release. 7. So far as merit is concerned, Court finds that though in this matter, Court is not deciding the issue on merit, however, since it is informed that such nature of claim are being filed by various workmen, therefore, it would be necessary to observe that in case such belated claims are filed, the Controlling Authority should consider before passing final order that whether if concerned period, employee has worked as daily wager then the gratuity has to be determined on basis of above referred G.O. as well as burden to prove that employee has worked 240 days initially would be on employee and if it is discharged, burden to rebut it would be on employer i.e. Corporation. 8. With aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. September 7, 2026 N. Sinha WRIC No. 25489 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad