✦ Bombay High Court · 17 Dec 2007

(Shri Deorao v. State) Office Notes & Ors.

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

(Shri Deorao s/o Paikuji Lambat vs. State and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 17, 2007 Heard Shri Randive, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Deopujari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1 and Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3. Shri Randive, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that in the instant petition, the grievance of the petitioner is basically in respect of amount of gratuity paid to the petitioner, which was only Rs. 50,000/- though petitioner is entitled for amount much more than Rs.50,000/-. Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3, states that at the 2 relevant time, the amount of gratuity was calculated in view of Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and, therefore, the amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the petitioner. However, at later point of time, the said Section was amended and, therefore, respondent no.3 shall re-calculate the amount due and payable to the petitioner in view of the said amendment and disburse the amount within a period of six weeks, if there is no other legal impediment in doing so. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, cause of action in the petition does not survive. The petition is

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — s. 4(3).

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 17 Dec 2007. The bench was D D SINHA, VASANTI A NAIK.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 5332 of 2006). ← Search more judgments