In Brief
The appellant, employed as a daily wager for 22 years and later regularized as a regular employee for 3 years (total 25 years of service), claimed gratuity after retirement. The State resisted, arguing he worked only 3 years as a regular employee and thus lacked the 5-year continuous service requirement. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that once the State regularized the employee's services, the entire period of service—including the pre-regularization period—counts towards the continuous service requirement for gratuity. The Court rejected technical arguments and emphasized that gratuity is welfare legislation that the State should implement fairly and honestly.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.