# Ram Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 896
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-09
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 3505 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53463
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 - Sections 7(3-A) & 8 - Gratuity -
Interest
on
delayed
payment
-
Entitlement
-
Nature
of
Gratuity
explained - Held, pension and gratuity
are not mercy or courtesy shown by the
Government, after the retirement of the
employee, rather it is valuable right and
therefore, if there is any delay in
settlement and disbursement of the
same, the same would visit the penalty of
payment of interest - The interest on
such delayed payment of gratuity is
neither penal nor compensatory in nature
and further it is a necessary corollary to
the retention of money by other person.
(Para 18 and 19)
B. Practice and Procedure - Modification
Application
-
Maintainability
Writ
petition was finally decided - However,
the interest on delayed payment was
claimed
by
way
of
modification
application - How far substantive prayer
can
be
granted
on
modification
application - Held, for reviving the
proceedings in a finally decided writ
petition, no Miscellaneous Application
would be maintainable - The prayer for
payment of interest on the gratuity
amount in all senses, are the substantial
prayer - This Court after passing the
order has become functus officio and
does
not
retain
the
jurisdiction
to
entertain an application for substantially
decided issues - High Court rejected the
modification application leaving it open
to avail the remedy of filing the review
petition. (Para 24, 29, 30, 32 and 33)
Modification Application rejected. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. Though the learned Single Judge
on application bearing no. I.A. No. 2 of
2025 filed in writ petition bearing no. 4516
of 2024 vide order dated 5.3.2025 directed
the Family Court to decide the case within
a further period of eight months from the
date of production of certified copy of the
order is brought on record, but looking into
the peculiar fact and circumstances i.e. it is
an old matter, the Family Court concerned
is directed to proceed with the case on dayto-day basis and decide the same within
two months from today without granting
any unnecessary adjournments including
ground of strike of lawyers.

20. No order as to cost.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 896
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ - A No. 3505 of 2024

Ram Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vinay Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mayank Sinha, Neerav Chitravanshi,
Ran Vijay Singh

A. Service Law - Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 - Sections 7(3-A) & 8 - Gratuity -
Interest
on
delayed
payment
-
Entitlement
-
Nature
of
Gratuity
explained - Held, pension and gratuity
are not mercy or courtesy shown by the
Government, after the retirement of the
employee, rather it is valuable right and
therefore, if there is any delay in
settlement and disbursement of the
same, the same would visit the penalty of
payment of interest - The interest on
such delayed payment of gratuity is
neither penal nor compensatory in nature
and further it is a necessary corollary to
the retention of money by other person.
(Para 18 and 19)
B. Practice and Procedure - Modification
Application
-
Maintainability
Writ
petition was finally decided - However,
the interest on delayed payment was
claimed
by
way
of
modification
application - How far substantive prayer
can
be
granted
on
modification
application - Held, for reviving the
proceedings in a finally decided writ
petition, no Miscellaneous Application
would be maintainable - The prayer for
payment of interest on the gratuity
amount in all senses, are the substantial
prayer - This Court after passing the
order has become functus officio and
does
not
retain
the
jurisdiction
to
entertain an application for substantially
decided issues - High Court rejected the
modification application leaving it open
to avail the remedy of filing the review
petition. (Para 24, 29, 30, 32 and 33)
Modification Application rejected. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. H. Gangahanume Gowda Vs Karnataka Agro
Industries Corp. Ltd (2003) 3 SCC 40
2.
D.D.
Tewari
(Dead)
Through
legal
representatives Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran
Nigam & ors.. (2014) 8 SCC 894
3. St. of U.P. Vs Brahm Datt Sharma & anr.
reported in (1987) 2 SCC 179
4. in Civil Appeal No. 5041 of 2021; Supertech
Limited Vs Emeraled Court Owner Resident
Welfare Association & ors. (On Miscellaneous
Application No. 1572 of 2021)
5. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs Adani
Power Rajasthan Ltd., reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 313
5 All. Ram Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
897
6. Ajay Kumar Jain Vs St. of Uttar Pradesh &
anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3677
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

In Re C.M. Application No. 1 of
2024-(Condonation of Delay)

1. The reason explained in the
affidavit filed in support of the application
for condonation of delay is sufficient.

2.

Accordingly,
application
is
allowed.

3. Delay is condoned.

In Re C.M. Application No. 2 of
2024-(Modification)

1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Singh,
counsel for the applicant-petitioner, Standing
Counsel for the State, Sri Mayank Sinha,
counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 5.

2. Instant modification application has
been filed with the prayer to modify the
order dated 24.05.2024 to the extent that
the interest amount on delayed payment of
gratuity of amount Rs. 26,897/- be paid to
the applicant-petitioner.

3. The Writ A No. 3505 of 2024 (Ram
Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) was
filed with the following main prayer:-

"Issue a writ order or directions
in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the opposite parties to make the payment of
Rs. 26,897/- along with interest which was
deducted on 09.09.2004 vide gratuity
payment letter no.-982."

4. The factual matrix of the case is
that the petitioner was working as an Office
Assistant-II in the Office of Executive
Engineer, Vidhut Vitran Nigam-Ist, Ayodhya
and was superannuated on 31.08.2004. After
his retirement, the gratuity amounting
Rs.2,32,829/- was paid to him on 9.9.2004
and an amount of Rs.26,897/- was allegedly
withheld without giving any cogent reason.
Even after several request regarding the
payment of the gratuity, no action was taken
and being aggrieved the above-said writ
petition was instituted.

5. After hearing the parties at length
in the above-said writ petition, the Writ
Court passed the order on 24.05.2024,
which is reproduced hereinunder:-

""On 6.5.2024, following order
was passed:-

"Contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that after the order
dated 24-08-2023 passed by this court in
Writ
A
No.
6130
of
2023,
the
representation of the petitioner is decided
vide order dated 04-12-2023, wherein
making justification of the deduction of the
amount of Rs. 26,897/- from the gratuity
payable to the petitioner. He next added
that the aforesaid amount is deducted on
the ground that the same was paid as
excess payment, during the service period
but there is no law with respect to the
deduction of the amount from the gratuity.
He also added that in the absence of any
such provisions, the order itself is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.

In view of the above, Sri Nitin
Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing
appearing for the State as well as Sri Ran
Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the
opposite parties no. 3 to 5 are hereby
directed to seek instructions that under
what provision, the amount of Rs. 26,897/-
has been deducted from the gratuity of the
petitioner ?
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

As prayed, list/put up this matter
in the next week, as fresh."

Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5, on
the basis of instructions, submits that
though the order has been passed for
deduction of amount of Rs.26,897/- from
the payment of gratuity but there is no
overt provision for deduction of the same.

Since the authorities have failed
to provide any instructions to the counsel
regarding provision of deduction of any
amount from gratuity of an employee, the
order dated 4.12.2023 cannot sustain and,
thus, the same is hereby quashed.

The matter is remitted back to the
respondent no.5 to consider and the decide
the matter afresh with respect to payment
of amount of Rs.26897/- against the
gratuity amount payable to the petitioner
within a period of two weeks from the date
a certified copy of this order is produced
before him.

With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is allowed.""

6. Vide the order aforesaid, the Writ
Court directed the respondent no. 5 in the
writ petition, to consider and decide the
matter a fresh with respect to the payment
of amount of Rs. 26,897/- against the
gratuity amount.

7. It is an admitted fact that the
gratuity amount Rs. 26,897/- have been
paid to the applicant-petitioner which is
apparent from paragraph no. 6 of the
modification application.

8. The modification application is
filed while raising the grievance that the
order dated 24.5.2024 has never been
challenged by the opposite party rather the
same has been complied with, but the
interest part has not been paid yet.

9. Submission of counsel for the
applicant-petitioner is that the applicantpetitioner was under impression that the
prayer has been sought for payment of
interest on the gratuity amount and there is
settled proposition of law for payment of
interest on the delayed payment of amount
of gratuity and therefore, the applicantpetitioner expected that the interest would
be paid to him, but in fact the department
did not pay the same. He further submits
that since it would not be open for the
applicant-petitioner to go into other round
of writ petition seeking the payment of
interest on the gratuity amount as the plea
and prayer has already been taken in the
Writ A No. 3505 of 2024. He submits that
the law is settled on this issue.

10. In support of his contention, the
counsel for the applicant-petitioner has
placed reliance on the judgment rendered in
the case of H. Gangahanume Gowda Vs.
Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd
(2003) 3 SCC 40 and referred paragraph
no. 9 and 10. Paragraph nos. 9 and 10 are
read as follows:-

"9. It is clear from what is
extracted above from the order of the
learned Single Judge that interest on
delayed payment of gratuity was denied
only on the ground that there was doubt
whether the appellant was entitled to
gratuity, cash equivalent to leave etc., in
view of divergent opinion of the courts
during the pendency of enquiry. The
learned Single Judge having held that the
appellant was entitled to payment of
gratuity was not right in denying the
interest on the delayed payment of gratuity
having due regard to Section 7(3-A) of the
Act. It was not the case of the respondent
that the delay in the payment of gratuity
was due to the fault of the employee and
5 All. Ram Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
899
that it had obtained permission in writing
from the controlling authority for the
delayed payment on that ground. As
noticed above, there is a clear mandate in
the provisions of Section 7 to the employer
for payment of gratuity within time and to
pay interest on the delayed payment of
gratuity. There is also provision to recover
the amount of gratuity with compound
interest in case the amount of gratuity
payable was not paid by the employer in
terms of Section 8 of the Act. Since the
employer did not satisfy the mandatory
requirements of the proviso to Section 7(3A), no discretion was left to deny the
interest to the appellant on belated
payment of gratuity. Unfortunately, the a
Division Bench of the High Court, having
found that the appellant was entitled to
interest, declined to interfere with the order
of the learned Single Judge as regards the
claim of interest on delayed payment of
gratuity only on the ground that the
discretion exercised by the learned Single
Judge could not be said to be arbitrary. In
the first place in the light of what is stated
above, the learned Single Judge could not
refuse the grant of interest exercising b
discretion
as
against
the
mandatory
provisions contained in Section 7 of the
Act. The Division Bench, in our opinion,
committed an error in assuming that the
learned Single Judge could exercise the
discretion in the matter of awarding
interest
and
that
such
a
discretion
exercised was not arbitrary.

10. In the light of the facts stated
and for the reasons aforementioned, the
impugned order cannot be sustained.
Consequently,
it
is
set
aside.
The
respondent is directed to pay interest @
10% on the amount of gratuity to which the
appellant is entitled from the date it
became payable till the date of payment of
the gratuity amount. The appeal is allowed
accordingly with cost quantified at Rs
10,000."

11. Referring the aforesaid, he
submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court while
interpreting the provisions of sections 7(3A) and 8 of the payment of Gratuity Act,
1972(hereinafter referred to as Act 1972)
has held that the interest on the delayed
payment of gratuity is mandatory and not
discretionary. It is further held that if there
is no delay due to fault of the employee
then the employer is under the bounden
duty to make payment of interest on the
delayed payment of gratuity.

12. Further submitted that in case of
D.D. Tewari (Dead) Through legal
representatives Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam and Ors. (2014) 8 SCC
894, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph nos. 6 to 8 has dealt with the
matter which covers the case of the present
petitioner-applicant
with
four
corners.
Paragraph nos. 6 to 8 are quoted
hereinunder:-

"6. It is an undisputed fact that
the appellant retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation on 3110-2006 and the order of the learned Single
Judge after adverting to the relevant facts
and the legal position has given a direction
to the respondent employer to pay the
erroneously withheld pensionary benefits
and the gratuity amount to the legal
representatives of the deceased employee
without awarding interest for which the
appellant is legally entitled, therefore, this
Court has to exercise its appellate
jurisdiction as there is a miscarriage of
justice in denying the interest to be paid or
payable by the employer from the date of
the entitlement of the deceased employee
till the date of payment as per the aforesaid
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
legal principle laid down by this Court in
the judgment referred3 to supra. We have to
award interest at the rate of 9% per annum
both on the amount of pension due and the
gratuity amount which are to be paid by the
respondent.

7. It is needless to mention that
the respondents have erroneously withheld
payment of gratuity amount for which the
appellants herein are entitled in law for
payment of penal amount on the delayed
payment of gratuity under the provisions of
the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, we do not propose to do that in the
case in hand.

8. For the reasons stated above,
we award interest at the rate of 9% on the
delayed payment of pension and gratuity
amount from the date of entitlement till the
date of the actual payment. If this amount is
not paid within six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, the same
shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per
annum from the date the amount falls due
to the deceased employee. With the above
directions, this appeal is allowed."

13. Referring the aforesaid, the
counsel for the petitioner-applicant has
emphasized
that
it
has
been
very
specifically held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court that the pension and gratuity are not
a bounty to be distributed by the
Government rather it is valuable right and
property of the employee and any culpable
delay in disbursement of the same shall
visit with the penalty of payment of
interest.

14. Concluding his arguments, he
submits that since the law is settled on this
issue that the delayed payment of the
gratuity mandatorily requires the payment
of interest on the same and further the
applicant-petitioner in the writ petition has
very specifically sought directions for
payment of interest on the delayed payment
of gratuity, which has inadvertently been
left to be directed in the order dated
24.05.2024, therefore, it is humbly prayed
that the respondent no. 5 may be directed to
make payment of interest on the delayed
payment of gratuity.

15. Contradicting the aforesaid
contentions,
the
counsel
for
the
Madhyanchal Vidhut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
submits that the order dated 24.05.2024 has
been passed wherein, the direction was for
payment of the rest of the gratuity amount
of Rs.26,897/- and in-compliance thereof,
the same has been paid vide letter dated
12.07.2024. He also submits that the
applicant-petitioner had received excess
amount in salary in between December,
1987 to December, 1995 and there was no
other means to recover his salary therefore,
the same is adjusted from the interest and
therefore, there is no due of any payment of
the
applicant-petitioner,
therefore,
submission is that the instant application is
liable to be dismissed.

16. Considering the submissions of
counsel for the parties and after perusal of
record, it transpires that the applicantpetitioner instituted a writ petition wherein,
the direction was issued to the respondent
no. 5 of the writ petition that the applicantpetitioner will be paid Rs.26,897/- against
rest of the payment of the gratuity amount.
It is apparent from the prayer made in the
writ petition that the interest was also
demanded vide the prayer.

17. The argument of learned counsel
for the opposite party is of two fold, one
that the interest on the gratuity amount is
not
directed
to
be
paid
to
the
5 All. Ram Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
901
applicant/petitioner.
Secondly,
the
modification
application
is
not
maintainable after final order is passed.

18. So long as the first part of the
contention is concerned, the law with
respect to payment of interest on the
delayed payment of gratuity is utterly clear
as it is trite that the interest on such delayed
payment of gratuity is neither penal nor
compensatory in nature and further it is a
necessary corollary to the retention of
money by other person. It has been said in
so many words that the payment of interest
on the gratuity amount is mandatory and
not discretionary to decide regarding the
payment of the same.

19. Time and again, it has also been
held that pension and gratuity are not
mercy
or
courtesy
shown
by
the
Government, after the retirement of the
employee, rather it is valuable right and
therefore, if there is any delay in settlement
and disbursement of the same, the same
would visit the penalty of payment of
interest.

20. Case in hand is that the deduction
of an amount of Rs.26,897/- against the
gratuity
amount
was
done
by
the
department in lieu of an adjustment of
excess payment of salary which is no way
permissible under the law. While filing the
objection, this plea has specifically been
taken by the respondent corporation that
the interest could also not be given as there
had been excess payment of salary started
from December, 1987 to December, 1995
to the applicant-petitioner. This plea in fact
is not acceptable in light of the settled
proposition of law.

21. Whereas, the first and foremost
question with regard to the maintainability
of
the
modification
application
is
concerned, admittedly, the writ petition has
finally been decided on merits. Now,
whether the modification application is
maintainable in a matter where the final
order
is
passed,
is
the
point
of
determination?

22. Speaking with common sense, it
would be said that if the pleading and
prayer are there, then, denying the
opportunity of modification in the final
order would be unjustifiable as the same
would give multiplicity of the litigation, but
law which settled over period of time is
that, such modification application is not
maintainable.

23. This Court may refer the case of
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt
Sharma and Another reported in (1987)
2 SCC 179. Paragraph no. 10 the judgment
is reproduced hereinunder:-

"Constitution of India- Article
226 Miscellaneous application, filed In an
already decided writ petition, to revive
proceedings in respect of subsequent events
after long lapse of time (2 years) not
entertainable Procedure Practice and

Held:

When
proceedings
stand
terminated by final disposal of writ petition
it is not open to the court to reopen the
proceedings by means of a mis-cellaneous
application in respect of a matter which
provided a fresh cause of action. If this
principle is not tollowed there would be
confusion and chaos and the finality of
proceedings would cease to have any
meaning."

24. The Apex Court has held that for
reviving the proceedings in a finally
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decided writ petition, no Miscellaneous
Application would be maintainable.

25. In case of Supertech Limited Vs.
Emeraled
Court
Owner
Resident
Welfare
Association
and
Others
Miscellaneous Application No. 1572 of
2021 in Civil Appeal No. 5041 of 2021, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
follows:-

"11 The attempt in the present
miscellaneous application is clearly to seek
a substantive modification of the judgment
of this Court. Such an attempt is not
permissible in a miscellaneous application.
While Mr Mukul Rohatgi. learned senior
counsel has relied upon the provisions of
Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court
Rules 2013, what is contemplated therein is
a saving of the inherent powers of the
Court to make such orders as may be
necessary for the ends of justice or to
prevent an abuse of the process of the
Court. Order LV Rule 6 cannot be inverted
to bypass the provisions for review in
Order XLVII in the Supreme Court Rules
2013. The Miscellaneous application is an
abuse of the process.

12 The hallmark of a judicial
pronouncement is its stability and finality.
Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes
which are subject to the vagaries of wind
and weather. A disturbing trend has
emerged
in
this
court
of
repeated
applications,
styled
as
Miscellaneous
Applications, being filed after a final
judgment has been pronounced. Such a
practice has no legal foundation and must
be firmly discouraged. It reduces litigation
to a gambit. Miscellaneous Applications
are becoming a preferred course to those
with resources to pursue strategies to avoid
compliance with judicial decisions. A
judicial pronouncement cannot be subject
to modification once the judgment has been
pronounced, by filing a miscellaneous
application. Filing of a miscellaneous
application
seeking
modification/
clarification of a judgment is not envisaged
in law. Further, it is a settled legal
principle that one cannot do indirectly
what one cannot do directly ["Quando
aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et
per obliquum"].

13 Further, there is another legal
principle which is applicable in the present
case. It is that where a power is given to do
a certain thing in a certain way. the thing
must be done in that way or not at all and
that other methods of performance are
necessarily forbidden. Hence, when a
statute requires a particular thing to be
done in a particular manner, it must be
done in that manner or not at all and other
methods of performance are necessarily
forbidden. This Court too, has adopted this
maxim". This rule provides that an
expressly laid down mode of doing
something necessarily implies a prohibition
on doing it in any other way."

26. It has been held that by way of
Miscellaneous
Applications
seeking
a
substantive modification of the judgment,
is not permissible as the same is amount to
abuse of the process and that would also
create
unended
multiplicity
in
the
proceedings.

27. More recently, in the case of
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v.
Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 313, it has been
held as follows:-

"We felt it necessary to examine
the question about maintainability of the
present application as we are of the view
that it was necessary to spell out the
5 All. Smt. Kusum Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
903
position of law as to when such post -
disposal miscellaneous applications can be
entertained after a matter is disposed of.
This Court has become functus officio and
does not retain jurisdiction to entertain an
application after the appeal was disposed
of by the judgment of a three-Judge Bench
of this Court on 31.08.2020 through a
course beyond that specified in the statute.
This is not an application for correcting
any clerical or arithmetical error. Neither
it is an application for extension of time. A
post disposal application for modification
and clarification of the order of disposal
shall lie only in rare cases, where the order
passed by this Court is executory in nature
and the directions of the Court may become
impossible to be implemented because of
subsequent events or developments. The
factual background of this Application does
not fit into that description."

28. This law has also subsequently
been followed in the case of Ajay Kumar
Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3677.

29. Undoubtedly, in the final order
dated 24.5.2024 passed in Writ A No. 3505
of 2024, there is no direction for payment
of interest on the delayed payment of
gratuity as the matter was remitted back to
the respondent no. 5 to consider and decide
the matter with respect to the amount of Rs.
26,897/- against the gratuity amount. The
prayer for payment of interest on the
gratuity amount in all senses, are the
substantial prayer.

30. It is apt to say that this Court after
passing the order has become functus
officio and does not retain the jurisdiction
to entertain an application for substantially
decided issues. In fact this is modification
application and not an application for
correction or any clerical or arithmetic
error or application for extension of time,
therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the modification application would
substantially and majorly change the nature
of the order dated 24.05.2024.

31. Hence, this Court finds force in
the objection made by counsel for the
opposite
parties
regarding
the
maintainability
of
the
modification
application.

32. Resultantly, the modification
application is dismissed on the ground of
maintainability.

33. Needless to say that the remedy of
filing review petition is always open to the
petitioner.

34. Consigned to records.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 903
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Writ - A No. 6048 of 2024

Smt. Kusum Lata Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinay Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service Law - Leave Encashment - Delay
in Payment - Retiral Dues as Property -
Petitioner retired on 31.03.2018 as Assistant