The Haryana State Cooperative v. Bank Limited, Panchkula

Smt. Maha Devi and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.S.S. Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Shri Nobat Ram, husband of respondent Smt. Maha Devi was working as L.V.O. in the Haryana State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited since 1966. Unfortunately on 3.2.1995 he expired. Thereafter Smt. Maha Devi (respondent No.1) was paid by the petitioner an amount of Rs.44,950/- towards gratuity on 31.10.1995 without taking into consideration the total length of service of the husband of the claimant. Feeling aggrieved against the less payment of gratuity, respondent No.1 approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by filing claim petition under Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 in which she claimed that she was entitled to the amount of gratuity of Rs.1,14,950/-. Notice of the claim petition was given to the petitioner. After filing of the written statement, the petitioner did not C.W.P. No.10083 of 2009 -2- appear and contest the claim petition, and ultimately the Controlling Authority vide order dated 30.6.2003 awarded an amount of Rs.70,000/- being the balance gratuity amount with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of entitlement, i.e., 31.10.1995 till the date of the the order, which was calculated as Rs.46,200/-. Against the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner and the same has been dismissed vide order dated

28.5.2004. Hence this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of the above order, the entire amount of gratuity i.e. Rs.70,000/- and the interest amount i.e. Rs.46,200/- have been paid to respondent No.1. Learned counsel the petitioner though could not dispute the calculation of the amount of gratuity in view of the qualifying service rendered by the husband of the petitioner, but he submitted that the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has granted interest without any justification. I do not find any force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the facts, it reveals that no justification was given by the petitioner for awarding the less gratuity amount to the widow, therefore, she was compelled to contest the case before the Controlling Authority. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the Controlling Authority was fully justified in awarding interest on the amount of gratuity, which was not paid to respondent No.1 in time. The amount of interest has already been paid to respondent No.1. In these facts, I do not find any merit in the petition. Dismissed. July 10, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE