The General Manager Personnel v. Union of India
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-15. The General Manager Personnel v. Union of India. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3488 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL NO: 404 OF 2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the Order dated. 09-01 -2026, in WP. No. 24325 of 2O25. on the file of the High Court. Between: The General Manager Personnel, Welfare and CSR, The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem. ... PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER AND 1. Union of lndia, Represented by Secretary Department o{ Labour and Employment, Govt of lndia, New Delhi. 2. The Chief LabourCommissioner, Hyderabad. 3. Appllete Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, Dy Chief Labour Commissioner Central, NSTI Campus, Vidyanagar, Shivam road, Hyderabad 500 007. 4.
Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner Central, Mancherial, at Ramagundam At Qtr No Sp C4 NTPC TTS, Jyothinagar, Ramagundam, Peddapally, DIST- 505215,T . S. 5. Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, and Assistant Labour Commissioner Central, Ministry of Labour and Employment Office of the Dy Chief Labour Commissioner Central, NSTI Campus, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad 500 007. ... RESPONDENTS'RESPONDENTS ,|*. # . r;:li Petition unCer Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the order dated: 0901 . 2026 passed in WP. No. 24325 ol 2025. Counsel for thr: Appellant: SRI T. RAJINIKANTH REDDY, . ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B. NARASIMHA SHARMA, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INOIA FOR SRI N.
BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No. 404 of 2026 - Dated:15. 04. 2026 z Between: . lhe General Manager Personnel, - W. l{ur" and CSR, the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem. ... Appellant and t-inion of India. -Re presented by Secretary Department o{'Labour and Employment, Covt. of India, New Delhi, and 4 others. Respondents JUDGMENT: Fleard Sri T. Rajinikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate Gcneral, appcaring for the appellant and Sri B. Narasimha Sharrna, \ \ learned Additional Solicitor General of India, representing Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of lndia, appcaring lbr the respondents. 2. In the impugned writ petition i. e. , W. P. No.
24325 of 2025 filed by the appellant, the following prayer was made: "F'or the reasons stated in the accompanyiug affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ. ord:r more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Marrdarnus declaring the action of Respondents No. 4 and 5 in taking up the matter relating ro enhancement of gratuity contrary to the gratuity, notified by the Central Go'rernment under Section a(3) of Gratuitv Act, as illegal, without juri;diction, ultra-vires of Section 7(4) Provisions of Gratuity Act, more paflicularly, under Section 4(3) of Gratuity Act and consequently prohibit the Respondent No. 4 and 5 from entertaining applications for enhancernent of gratuity beyond the applicable gratuity notified under Gratuity Act, 1972 and consequential reliefs in respect of employees of Petitioner and pass such other order or orders as deerned fit and proper in the interest ofjustice. " 3.
No order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter relerred to as, "the Controlling Authority") allowing enhanced gratuity under the Notification dated 29. 03. 2018 was under challenge in the writ petition. The learned writ court refused to grant intt:rim relief. Therefore. the present appcal has been filed. 4. Or L0. 04. 2026, during the course of submissions, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant submitted that interim :elief has been granted in other r. vrit petitions where the Controlling Authority had enhanced the gratuity dues on the basis of the Notification dated 29. 03. 20[8 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employnrent. Government of [ndia, to those employees rvho had retired prior to29. O3. 2018.
[t was also submitted that about 1568 applications have been filed with similar prayer before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to aS, "the Acr of 1972") by the employees who have retired prior to 29. 03. 2018, out of which 669 applications have already been disposed of. 5. On the aforesaid submission, the matter was adjourned to enable the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant to place the interim orders passed in the other writ petitions. 6. By the memo vide USR No. 46451 of 2026, number of interim orders passed in diff'erent writ petitions have been annexed. However, in those cases, the individual orders of the Controlling Authority enhancing the payable amount of gratuity up to Rs. 20. 00 lakhs even to those employees who had retired prior to 29. 03. 2018 were under challenge.
Therefore, it appears that the learned writ court being persuaded by the submissions ofl the writ petitioner granted interim suspension of the impugned orders enhancing the ceiling of gratuity amount to Rs. 20. 00 lakhs. 7. [n the present writ petition, the challenge is not to any individual \ \ order of the Controlling Authority, but a writ of mandamus has been sought for declaring the action of respondents No. 4 and 5 - Controlling Authority, in taking up the rnatter relating to enhancement of gratuity as illegal and without jurisdiction, being ultra vires the provisions of '/(4) Section and 4(3) of the Acr of 1972. The appellant/wrir petitioner - General Manager (Personnel), welfare & csR, singareni collieries compan'y Limited, Kothagudem, also sought a consequential prohibition of respondents No.
4 and 5 - Controlling Authority, from entertaining applicatirlns for enhancement ol'gratuity beyond the applicable gratuity notified under the Act of 1972 to those employecs who had retired prior to 29. 03. 2018. 8. Le,arned Additional Solicitor General of India has, on the other hand, pointed out that the statutory authority cannot be prohibited from entertaining the applications seeking enhancement of gratuity amount on the basis of the Notification No. l6, dated 29. 03. 2018, u'hich came into '[he effect from the said date. decision taken on such applications rnay be errone'ous in flact or in [aw, but it cannot be said to be without jurisdictic,n for seeking the relief of writ of prohibition. 9. wt: understand from the prayer made in the writ petition and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties that the appellant has approached the learned writ courl for a writ of mandamus. A consequerrtial prayer for prohibiting respondents No.
4 and 5 has been ,,,,'/ made from entertaining the applications for enhancement of gratuity beyond the applicable gratuity notified under the Act of 1972. There is no impugned order in favour of the workman in this case. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appqllant has also sought to bring to the notice of this court that since the interim relief was denied by the learned writ court, about 300 more applications have been disposed of in favour of the workmen granting them the enhanced graruity limit. 10. Be that as it may, for the purposes of the present challenge, we are of the opinion that the prayer made in the writ petition is not appropriate. Therefore. the learned writ court refused to grant the interim relief also for the reason that there was no impugned order enhancing the ceiling in favour of any workman in this writ petition. \ \ 1 l.
In sugh circumstances, considering the background of the number \ \ of cases being entertained on this issue by the Controlling Authority and in order to give a quietus to the legal question - whether the orders enhancing the gratuity amount to Rs. 20. 00 lakhs as per the Notification No. 16, dated 29. 03. 20[8, in favour of the employees who have retired prior to 29. 03. 2018 are proper and legally sustainable or not, the matter has to be determined in an expeditious manner. Therefore, we are of the ') view th;rt on the one hand there is no need to intert'ere in the present appeal, but since the main writ petition is pending. libeny is given to the appellant to seek amendment in the main prayer of the rvrit petition and also malie a request to the learned writ court to decide the lead matter expeditiously after hearing the affected parties. 12. Therefore, the writ appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.
The learned writ court is requested to decide the pending rvrit petition and the other writ petitions where orders enhancing the ceiling limit of ;3ratuity are under challenge by the same writ pctitioner in an expeditious manner, however, after notice and hearing the concerned parties. There shall be no order as to cosrs. M scellaneous applications pending, if any. shall stand closed SD/. L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Seqetary Department of Labour and Empl Union of lndia, Govt of lndia, Ne'ru Delhi. 2. The Chiei Labour Commissioner, Hyderabad. 3. Dy. Chiel'Labour Commissioner Central, Appllete Authority under Payment of Gratuity lr;t 1972, NSTI campus, Vidyanagar, Shivam road, Hyderabad 500 007. 4. Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Assistant Labour commissioner central, Mancherial, at Ramagundam At etr No sp c4 NTpc TTS, Jyothinagar, Ramagundam, Peddapally, DIST- 505215,T . S. 5.
Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, and Assistant Labour Commissioner Central, Ministry of Labour and Employment Office of the Dy Chief Labour Commissioner Central, NSTI Campus, vidyanagar, Hyderabad 500 002. 6 Two ccs; to ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, High court for the state of Telanganil, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7 one cc t() sRl N. BHUJANGA RAo, DEPUTY soltctroR GENERAL oF tNDtA # loPUCl 8. Two CD C:opies PSK. TKS HIGH COURT DATED: 11510412026 1 HE SI4 t f . J ) JUDGMENT U 28 APR 2026 WA. No. 404 ot 2026 i * * EATCH I I T' -s G o F E li -fl rl 3 c 3 s il ,$
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.