Finality of resolution plans bars belated gratuity claims absent proof of non-implementation by the successful resolution applicant.

Approved resolution plans attain finality and bind the corporate debtor and all stakeholders, so belated gratuity claims cannot be revived unless there is material showing genuine non-implementation of the plan by the successful resolution applicant. Here, no breach, default, or failure in implementation was established, and the claimed dues were not shown to form part of the approved implementation framework. Regulation 39(9) permits directions only in cases of real grievance over non-implementation, not to introduce post facto claims or modify a final plan without Committee of Creditors consideration. The direction to pay gratuity dues was therefore unsustainable, and the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to revive the claims.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority could entertain gratuity claims after the resolution plan had attained finality and been implemented, and whether it could direct payment of such claims on the premise of non-implementation of the plan without approval by the Committee of Creditors.

Analysis: The approved resolution plan had already been affirmed and had become binding on the corporate debtor and all stakeholders. The claims sought to be revived were not shown to form part of the approved implementation framework, and there was no material to establish any default, breach, or failure in implementation attributable to the successful resolution applicant. Regulation 39(9) of the CIRP Regulations enables directions only where a creditor is genuinely aggrieved by non-implementation of a resolution plan, and that jurisdiction cannot be used to introduce belated claims or effect a post facto modification of a plan that has attained finality. The principle that a successful resolution applicant must receive a fresh slate, free from surprise claims, applies with full force.

Conclusion: The direction to pay gratuity dues could not be sustained, and the Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction to revive the claims or alter the approved resolution plan without consideration by the Committee of Creditors.

---