Can't File Miscellaneous Application To Seek Interest On Gratuity After Disposal Of Writ Petition: Allahabad HC

Background

RP Singh retired in 2004 from his post as Office Assistant II in the Executive Engineer's office, Ayodhya. On retirement, he was paid some gratuity, but about Rs. 26,000 was withheld by the department without any clear explanation. Despite repeated representations from RP Singh, he received no response. Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition seeking the release of this payment.

The court passed an order directing the employer to decide the issue of gratuity afresh. Eventually, the money was paid to RP Singh. However, the order said nothing about interest. RP Singh then filed a modification application, explaining that despite explicitly pleading for interest in the writ petition, the judgement inadvertently left it unaddressed. Thus, he claimed interest on the delayed payment, arguing that the right to interest on delayed gratuity is well-settled.

Arguments

RP Singh submitted that interest on delayed gratuity is a mandatory right under Sections 7(3-A) and 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Relying on H. Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn, he argued that gratuity is not merely govt largesse, but is a statutory right. Thus, any delay triggers a liability to pay interest.

The employer argued that the modification application was not maintainable. They argued that the court's earlier order only directed the payment of withheld amount, which has already been complied with. Thus, they argued, that no due remained payable. Since the final judgement was passed on merits, they argued that a miscellaneous application seeking to reintroduce a substantive claim was not maintainable.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court noted that despite RP Singh explicitly praying for interest in the earlier proceedings, the final order did not include any direction to that effect. The court also explained that gratuity and pension are not acts of generosity by the government, but are statutory entitlements. Thus, the court held that any delay in their disbursement attracts interest under Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

Secondly, the court agreed that RP Singh has a strong case on merits. However, the court explained that finality in judicial decisions is important. The court held that once a writ petition is disposed of, the court becomes functus officio; that is, the court no longer has any jurisdiction to hear applications that seek to expand the scope of the reliefs granted. Relying on State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, (Civil Appeal No. 481 of 1987), the court held that a miscellaneous application cannot revive proceedings or provide any fresh course of action if the matter has been disposed of. The court explained that judicial verdicts are not “like sand dunes,” and any change must follow the process of review or appeal.

Thirdly, the court cited Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., 2024 INSC 213. The court explained that modification applications after disposal can only be heard in rare cases, where the order becomes unimplementable due to new facts or events. However, the court held that the present application did not meet that bar.

Thus, the court dismissed the modification application. The court explained that although RP Singh had a legitimate claim to interest, the modification application could not be used to secure it.

Decided on: 09-05-2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:26054

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh

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

Click Here To Read/Download The Order