JABALPUR, India, June 13 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on May 12:
1. This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief (s):-
"(i) That, the respondent may kindly be directed to release the gratuity amount of the petitioner's deceased husband in favor of the petitioner with the interest of 18% p.a.
(ii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner's husband worked at Shajapur on the post of peon in the respondent-department and he died on 10.12.2016. Petitioner's husband was initially appointed on 30.11.1995 for a period of two years on contingency basis and after completing two years of probation, his services were regularized on the post of Peon w.e.f. 16.12.1997. In the year 2009, when petitioner's husband was posted at Shajapur, he applied for half day's leave on 5.01.2009 but due to medical condition he remained absent. Thereafter, respondents issued a show-cause notice to petitioner's husband which he did not reply and on account of that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him where he was found guilty in the said enquiry. On the basis of enquiry report, show-cause notice was issued to petitioner's husband on 18.02.2014 as to why his services should not be terminated and 15 days' time was given to file his reply. Petitioner's husband did not file any reply in response to the aforesaid show-cause notice and ultimately vide order dated 27.03.2014 services of petitioner's husband were terminated. Petitioner's husband expired on 10.12.2016. Thereafter, petitioner served a legal notice for releasing the funds and other service benefits of her deceased husband. Thereafter, respondents intimated petitioner that the services of her deceased husband were terminated on 27.03.2014 and the terminated employee would be entitled only to that amount which he had deposited in employee's provident fund and also stated that petitioner's husband was not entitled to gratuity. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Section 4(6) of Payment of Gratuity Act petitioner could not be deprived of the amount of gratuity. It is further submitted that the services of deceased were terminated on the basis of absence from service and there was no allegation of any act, willful omission or negligence that caused any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer. It is submitted that even in the termination order there is no forfeiture of the gratuity of deceased and there is no damage or loss or destruction of property belonging to the respondents, therefore, petitioner is entitled to gratuity. Reliance has been placed on order dated 06.02.2018 passed by co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat Jabalpur in WP. No.20795/2016 [The Manager, Western Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Mr. Prayag Modi]. It is submitted that without considering the aforesaid position, the respondents did not grant the benefit of gratuity.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/storage/upload/gwalior/MPHCGWL/2018/WP/16262/WP_16262_2018_FinalOrder_12-05-2026.pdf)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
