Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Sep-2024 19:48:03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31591 of 2022 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Jhatu Gochhayat …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha and Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : :
Legal Reasoning
gratuity amount was deducted per the order of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 25664/2013 and that HUDCO had issued a “No Dues Certificate” after receiving payment. (iv) It is further contended that the Disciplinary Authority followed a fair procedure and the Service Rules of 1992, acting within jurisdiction and as per law. (v) It is further contended that the petitioner remained silent for seven years after these events and only recently challenged the deduction of his gratuity, alleging it was illegal. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard learned counsel for both parties at length and meticulously perused the materials submitted before this Court. 6. The crux of the matter is that the outstanding loan amount owed by the petitioner to HUDCO was deducted from the petitioner’s gratuity in 2015. Now, after a lapse of seven years, the petitioner has approached this, Court. Admittedly, from the records of this case and also from the impugned order, the petitioner failed to furnish any explanation, much less any cogent explanation for such inordinate delay. Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Sep-2024 19:48:03 7. Now, it is a well-established legal principle that delay erodes equity. In alignment with this principle, the Supreme Court, in its decision in Shiv Dass v. Union of India1, has pronounced in paragraph 6 as follows: “71. Normally, in the case of belated approach writ petition has to be dismissed. Delay or laches is one of the factors to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.” 8. In a similar vein, the Supreme Court, in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh,2 invoked Halsbury’s Laws of England and articulated its holding in paragraph 12 as follows: “12. The statement of law has also been summarised in Halsbury’s Laws of England/ para 911/ p. 395 as follows: “In determining whether there has been such delay as to amount to laches, the chief points to be considered are: (i) acquiescence on the claimant’s part; and (ii) any change of position that has occurred on the defendant’s part. Acquiescence in this sense does not mean standing by while the violation of a right is in progress, but assent after the violation has been completed and the claimant has become aware of it. It is unjust to give the claimant a remedy where, by his conduct, he has done that which might fairly be
Arguments
Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, Adv. Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, ASC Mr. Tuna Sahu, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-08.08.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -06.09.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition contesting the validity of the letter dated 30.10.2015 issued by the opposite party no. 2. He also sought to annul the letter and requested the return of the deducted gratuity amount of ₹6,19,777/- together with interest. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner served as a Senior Safaiwala in the Medical Department under Opp. Party No. 4, the Paradip Port Trust. Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Sep-2024 19:48:03 (ii) He availed of loan facilities from Opp. Party No. 2, HUDCO, for house repairs in 2001 and 2003, amounting to a total of ₹3,10,000. The loan was facilitated through the Paradip Port Trust, which was responsible for deducting and depositing the EMIs with HUDCO. (iii) Due to defaults in loan repayments, HUDCO filed a civil suit (C.S. (III) No. 10/2015) to recover the outstanding amount, which is pending before the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kujanga. (iv) The petitioner had previously filed another writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 25664/2013, on 21.11.2013, which was disposed of on 13.10.2015, reiterating the directions for repayment. (v) Following this Court’s order, HUDCO issued a fresh demand via letter No. 2104 dated 30.10.2015, reducing the penal interest and requesting payment of ₹6,19,777/- by 28.12.2015. (vi) In response, the Paradip Port Trust issued notices to the petitioner, including one on 12.11.2015, urging compliance with the court order within 15 days. (vii) On 09.12.2015, the Paradip Port Trust deducted ₹6,19,777/- from the petitioner’s gratuity and remitted it to HUDCO. Subsequently, on 15.12.2015, HUDCO confirmed the settlement of the loan and initiated the withdrawal of pending proceedings, which was communicated to the petitioner on 29.12.2015. (viii) Aggrieved by this deduction, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the legality of letter No. 2104 dated 30.10.2015 issued by HUDCO. He also sought to quash the letter and requested the return of the deducted gratuity amount of ₹6,19,777/- along with interest. Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Sep-2024 19:48:03 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The petitioner submitted that the deduction of his gratuity amount of Rs. 6,19,777/- by the authorities was unauthorized and illegal, as it violates Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. He submitted that gratuity, being a protected amount, cannot be attached or recovered under any circumstances, and the actions of the authorities were unjustified. (ii) He further submitted that, according to the loan agreement, the loan instalments were to be deducted only during his service period and not after his retirement. The deduction made post-retirement, therefore, violated the agreed terms. (iii) The petitioner contended that the gratuity amount was withheld and remitted to HUDCO without any prior notice to him, leaving him in a state of financial impasse. (iv) Given the aforementioned facts and the financial and health challenges he faces, the petitioner requested the Court to direct Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 4 to return the deducted gratuity amount in the interest of justice. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) It is submitted that the letter dated 30.10.2015 issued by HUDCO is legal, proper, and correct, and there is no ground for quashing it. Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Sep-2024 19:48:03 (ii) It is further submitted that that the deduction of Rs. 6,19,777/- from the petitioner’s gratuity was in compliance with the High Court’s directions in the previous writ petition. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to clear the dues, which he failed to do. (iii) It is contended that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that the