Supreme Court: Employees Who Resign or Retire After 5 Years’ Service Are Entitled to Gratuity Under 1972 Act

By Vanita
7 Min Read

Introduction

In a significant ruling strengthening employee rights in India, the Supreme Court on December 9, 2025, held that any employee who resigns or opts for voluntary retirement after completing at least five years of continuous service is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The judgment settles an important question frequently raised before labour courts, public authorities, and tribunals—*whether resignation results in forfeiture of gratuity. The Supreme Court has clarified that *gratuity cannot be denied merely because the employee resigned, unless the employer is exempted from the Act or statutory conditions for forfeiture are met.

The decision came in the matter titled:
Ashok Kumar Dabas (Dead through Legal Heirs) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1186.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan delivered the ruling.

Background of the Case

The Appellant, an employee of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), had served for nearly three decades before resigning due to personal and family reasons.

Despite his long tenure, the DTC *denied gratuity, pension, and leave encashment, claiming that his resignation led to forfeiture of past service and disqualified him from receiving retirement benefits under the *Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (CCS Rules).

After the employee’s death, his legal heirs continued the litigation, seeking statutory gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Supreme Court’s Findings

1. Gratuity is payable irrespective of resignation

The Supreme Court categorically held that:

“An employee who has rendered not less than five years of continuous service is entitled to gratuity, regardless of whether he retired or resigned from service.”

This interpretation flows directly from Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which lays down the universal right to gratuity based solely on length of continuous service.

The Court emphasised that the Act does not differentiate between resignation, retirement, superannuation, or voluntary retirement when determining gratuity eligibility.

2. Pension and gratuity operate under separate statutory schemes

While the High Court had denied pension based on Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules, which causes forfeiture of past service upon resignation, the Supreme Court upheld that finding. It observed:

  • Pension is governed by CCS Rules, which allow employers to deny pension upon resignation.
  • Gratuity, however, is governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, a self-contained welfare legislation.

The Court clarified that denial of pension does not automatically lead to denial of gratuity.

3. DTC is not exempted from the Payment of Gratuity Act

The Supreme Court examined whether DTC enjoyed any statutory exemption under Section 1(3)(c) of the Gratuity Act.

Finding no such exemption, the Bench held that:

DTC is fully bound by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Therefore, the employee’s legal heirs were entitled to full gratuity for his nearly 30-year service.

4. Welfare intent of gratuity law must be honoured

The Court reiterated the legislative objective of the Gratuity Act:

  • To provide terminal financial security to employees.
  • To act as a social welfare measure for long-serving workers.
  • To ensure minimum retirement benefits, regardless of mode of exit.

Punishing an employee for resigning, unless statutory grounds exist, defeats the purpose of the Act.

Direction of the Supreme Court

The Bench directed the Delhi Transport Corporation to:

  • Pay the statutory gratuity to the legal heirs of the deceased employee.
  • Calculate and release the amount as per Section 4(2) of the 1972 Act, including interest where applicable.

Legal Significance of the Judgment

This ruling has far-reaching consequences for government employees, PSU staff, and private-sector workers.

1. Strong reaffirmation of employee rights

The judgment reinforces that:

  • Completion of five years’ service = guaranteed gratuity
  • Resignation does not bar gratuity
  • Employers cannot hide behind internal rules or pension regulations to deny statutory gratuity

2. Important for employees in government undertakings

Many government bodies, including state transport corporations, earlier denied gratuity by citing internal service rules.
This judgment prevents such practices.

3. Strengthens labour welfare jurisprudence

The Supreme Court has aligned the interpretation of the Gratuity Act with its welfare purpose, ensuring that resigning employees are not financially penalised for personal decisions.

4. Sets a precedent for tribunals and High Courts

Various High Courts were giving conflicting rulings. This authoritative pronouncement will bring uniformity.

Key Takeaways for Employees and Employers

For Employees

  • If you have completed 5 years of continuous service, you are entitled to gratuity, even if you resigned.
  • File claims under the Payment of Gratuity Act, not merely service rules.
  • Employers cannot deny gratuity citing resignation, unless forfeiture conditions under Section 4(6) are met (involving misconduct causing loss).

For Employers

  • Gratuity cannot be withheld except on limited statutory grounds.
  • Service rules cannot override the Gratuity Act, 1972.
  • Government bodies must comply unless they are officially exempt.

Cause Title & Appearance

Cause Title:
ASHOK KUMAR DABAS (Dead Through Legal Heirs) v. Delhi Transport Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1186

Appearances

For the Petitioner(s):

  • Mr. Anil Mittal, Adv.
  • Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR

For the Respondent(s):

  • Mr. Aviral Saxena, AOR
  • Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv.
  • Mr. Paritosh Goyal, Adv.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashok Kumar Dabas v. DTC is a critical reminder that resignation does not extinguish statutory rights. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 stands as a protective shield for employees, ensuring that their years of service are honoured with terminal financial benefits.

This judgment not only resolves a long-standing legal issue but also protects thousands of employees—particularly those in government undertakings—from illegal denial of gratuity.

Also Read

Supreme Court Issues Pan-India Directions to Protect Rights of Disabled Prisoners — Landmark Step in Disability-Inclusive Prison Reforms

Three Credit Course on Law, Technology, and Vulnerability – Academic Opportunity at National Law University Odisha (January 2026) | Apply Now

Share This Article

👀 Attention, Legal Fam!

Lexibal is trusted by a community of 50,000+ and growing law students and legal professionals across India. A fast-growing legal community that’s learning, sharing, and leveling up together — and you’re invited to be part of it too.

Stay plugged into Lexibal through our official WhatsApp Groups, Telegram, and Instagram channels for daily alerts, verified opportunities, and everything you need to stay ahead in your legal journey.