Delayed gratuity claims require condonation first; merits cannot be examined until delay is separately addressed.

A delayed gratuity claim filed before the Controlling Authority must be supported by a separate application showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Rules require an employee to seek gratuity within the prescribed time, and delay can be excused only on a proper explanation. A claim lodged beyond time without such an accompanying request cannot be taken up straightaway on merits, because delay must be addressed first before substantive examination. The document states that deciding the claim on merits without first considering delay would be contrary to the Rules, and that separate consideration of condonation is necessary before merits are examined.

---

---

Issues: Whether a delayed gratuity claim before the Controlling Authority required a separate application for condonation of delay and whether the matter could be decided on merits without first considering delay.

Analysis: Rule 7 requires an employee to apply for gratuity within the stipulated time and permits delayed claims only on showing sufficient cause. Rule 10 provides the procedure before the Controlling Authority and also contemplates delay beyond the prescribed period being excused only on sufficient cause being shown. A claim filed beyond the prescribed time, without any accompanying application explaining the delay, cannot be entertained straightaway on merits. Proceeding to decide such a claim without first addressing delay would be contrary to the Rules.

Conclusion: A delayed gratuity claim must be accompanied by an application showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and separate consideration of delay is necessary before merits can be examined. The challenge succeeded.

---