9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... husband. On 15th June, 2021 she was communicated that she would be eligible to receive gratuity of Rs. 8,55,048/- but thereafter on 22nd June, 2021 she was intimated that the aforesaid figure was wrongly communicated to her and she would actually be entitled to receive gratuity of Rs. 2,46,648/-. 3. The petitioner claims that as per the terms and conditions of service of her husband, the calculation of gratuity would amount to Rs. 8,55,048/- and not Rs. 2,46,648/-. It has been submitted that the respondents are calculating gratuity at a reduced rate relying on the amended service rules which came into effect after the death of her husband and, accordingly, the said amendment ought not to be made applicable in the instant case. 4. It has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of all the employees, calculation of gratuity was made in accordance with the amended gratuity rules of the Company. 8. It has been submitted that there has been no discrimination with regard to calculation of gratuity in respect of any of the employees and each of the employees were paid gratuity in accordance with the amended gratuity rules. 9. It has been contended that at the time of entry into service the husband of the petitioner had signed a contract clearly mentioning that he would accept the rules and regulations of the Company applicable from time to time. After the death of the employee the petitioner, being his heir, would be bound by the contract entered into by and between the Company and her deceased husband. 10. It h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lument inclusive of basic pay, stagnation pay and DA at the time of retirement for each completed year of continuous service subject to a maximum of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The aforesaid rule was approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax with effect from 16th July, 2013, that is, prior to the appointment of the husband of the petitioner in the Company. 14. The petitioner possibly was misled relating to her claim for gratuity on the basis of a clause in the service manual of the Company. Though the rules relating to payment of gratuity of the Company stood amended with effect from July, 2013, but the said amendment was not reflected in the manual of the service terms and conditions of the executives of the Company. The same resulted in a confusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly not give or create any right in favour of the petitioner to claim higher gratuity. The service manual is a mere handbook for the employees and does not have any statutory force. The employees would be governed by the statutory service rules, as amended. 18. It is not a case that the amendment of the gratuity rules took place in 2022 after the death of the employee, as claimed by the petitioner, but the rules stood amended in the year 2014 with retrospective effect from July, 2013 with the approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax. May be due to mistake the amendment was not incorporated in the service manual. On detection of the error, the manual has been amended and the amendment is with effect from the date on which the amended gratu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
