Ashok Kumar Verma v. State of U.P & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 16 Aug 2022
- Bench
- NEERA
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Ms. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay 12% interest on the amount of gratuity for the period 30.06.2018 till the actual payment is made. " Pleading have been exchanged between the parties. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was superannuated on 30.06.2018, but till date, gratuity amount has not been paid to him. It is next submitted that in counter affidavit, except about the pendency of one inquiry during the service period in the year 2014, nothing specific has been stated.
It is further submitted that petitioner has never received any show cause notice or charge sheet even after retirement from service, therefore, assertion so made in the counter affidavit is vague and cannot be accepted. Lastly, it is submitted that a direction may be issued to respondent No. 2 to pay the gratuity along with 8% interest. Ms. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 though opposed the submissions made by counsel for petitioner, but could not dispute this fact that inquiry so referred in Para-12 of counter affidavit never came to logical ending. Further, she could not dispute the fact about non-issuance of charge sheet as well as show cause notice to the petitioner. I have considered rival submissions made by counsels for the parties and perused the records. There is no dispute on this point that petitioner was superannuated on 30.06.2018 and he has never been issued any charge sheet or show cause notice either prior to the retirement or after retirement. disciplinary proceeding contemplated on 09.04.2018 has never been concluded, therefore, withholding the gratuity amount is bad in law.
Operative part
Further, Under such circumstances, respondent No. 2 is directed to pay entire gratuity amount within two months along with interest as provided in Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 16.8.2022 Sartaj Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 16 Aug 2022. The bench was NEERA.
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.