The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that an appeal filed beyond the maximum limitation period under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be entertained, even if it seeks to modify an earlier gratuity order. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed nearly two years after the original order and consequently quashed the appellate decision.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Pammi Devi, had approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act after the death of her husband, Sarda Ram, seeking payment of gratuity benefits.
On November 1, 2022, the Controlling Authority allowed her claim and directed payment of ₹1,48,846 along with simple interest at 10% per annum from June 30, 2018, until the actual date of payment.
The employer later challenged that order before the Appellate Authority. Although the appeal was dismissed, the authority modified the interest component by reducing it from 10% to 9% and restricting the interest period from July 14, 2021, to February 29, 2024. Aggrieved by this modification, the widow moved the High Court.
Court's Observations
The principal issue before the High Court was whether the employer's appeal was maintainable when it had been filed well beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua referred to earlier decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court, reiterating that an appeal under the Act must be filed within 60 days from receipt of the order. The appellate authority may extend this period by another 60 days if sufficient cause is shown. However, the statute does not permit any further extension.
The bench observed,
"The Payment of Gratuity Act is a special enactment. The limitation prescribed under Section 7(7) has to be followed in its mandatory nature."
The Court further noted that the employer had filed the appeal almost two years after the Controlling Authority's order, far beyond the maximum permissible period of 120 days. In such circumstances, the appellate authority lacked the legal power to entertain the appeal.
Referring to settled precedent, the Court observed that once the statutory period expires, the delay cannot be condoned by invoking general principles under the Limitation Act.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court held that the employer's appeal itself was not maintainable because it had been filed after the expiry of the maximum limitation period prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
The bench observed,
"The appeal preferred by respondents No. 4 and 5... was not maintainable."
Accordingly, the Court set aside the appellate order dated September 16, 2025, restoring the legal position flowing from the original gratuity order passed by the Controlling Authority.
Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Pammi Devi v. The State of H.P. and Others
Case Number: CWP No. 10129 of 2026
Judge: Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Decision Date: 25 June 2026
