✦ Himachal Pradesh High Court · 05 Jul 2011

Nagaiya Ram & Ors. v. State of H.P & Ors.

CWP No. 1004 of 2011SANJAY KAROL

Case at a glance

Decided
05 Jul 2011
Bench
SANJAY KAROL

Outcome

Disposed of

The Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s),

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. The Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 05th July, 2011 (rana/c) ( Justice Sanjay Karol ), Judge.

Judgment

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. A. K. Gupta, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- (cid:147)i. That the respondents may be ordered to make the payment of both the gratuity to the petitioners i.e. for the period they remained on daily wages basis under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and further the respondents may be ordered to make the payment of gratuity to the petitioners for the period they remained on regular basis under the Pension Rules with 9% interest thereon. (cid:148)

2.

According to the petitioners, the issue regarding entitlement for gratuity is covered by the decision of this Court in State of H.P. vrs. Lashkari Ram in CWP No. 150 of 2004 and followed in many other cases.

3.

Learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. The petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for them to do so. In case, the petitioners are similarly situated, they shall not be discriminated and the matter will be duly considered by the first respondent/competent authority in the light of the judgment, referred to above and appropriate action in accordance with law, by disbursing the eligible benefits by way of gratuity, will be taken within another three months from the date of receipt of the representation(s) along with a copy of this judgment and the copy of the judgment, referred to above by the petitioner concerned.

Operative part

4.

The Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 05th July, 2011 (rana/c) ( Justice Sanjay Karol ), Judge.

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s),

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 05 Jul 2011. The bench was SANJAY KAROL.

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 Himachal Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CWP No. 1004 of 2011). ← Search more judgments