The Karnataka High Court has issued a recent directive to the State's Health Secretary. They have instructed the Health Secretary to release the pending gratuity payment for a former employee, which has been overdue for 16 years, within a 30-day timeframe. The court emphasized that gratuity is not a discretionary gift that employers can withhold at their own discretion.

A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna accepted the petition submitted by a retired individual aged 74. As a result of this decision, the court has ordered the release of a gratuity sum totaling Rs 4,09,550, along with accrued interest.

The petitioner had concluded 34 years of service and retired from Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College in Belgaum. Dissatisfied with the non-payment of gratuity, the petitioner initially sought redress from the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. While the application was approved, the authority responsible for payment failed to disburse the owed amount.

The High Court, right from the beginning, noted that both the gratuity itself and the interest on any delayed payments are required by law. It referred to Section 7(3)(a) of the Act, which outlines an employee's entitlement to simple interest as determined and notified by the Central Government from time to time.

The bench stated, "Clearly, in the present case, 11 years have elapsed since the Controlling Authority's directive for gratuity payment, and 16 years have passed since the petitioner's retirement. Therefore, it's not just a delay but a blameworthy delay on the part of the respondent in not disbursing the gratuity amount that the petitioner was entitled to all along."

The bench further commented, "The fact that the State has neglected to pay gratuity, a crucial end-of-service benefit, to its employee for the past 16 years reflects a lack of concern for its citizens, especially retired employees, whose voices have grown fainter with age. It appears that the State has turned a deaf ear to such voices. This displays not just negligence for a year or two, but an almost two-decade-long indifference in denying gratuity to an employee who had always been entitled to it as a retirement benefit."

The court highlighted that the State might disregard a citizen's request for gratuity payment since it doesn't stand to lose anything. However, if an employee, whose retirement relies on receiving terminal benefits like gratuity, faces delays or denials, they could be pushed into financial difficulties, left with no financial support as they advance in age.

As a result of these considerations, the court granted and accepted the petition.