Dismissed

Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2018WRIA/21567/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking enforcement of gratuity payments. The court held that the petitioner should approach the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The matter did not go on merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage after directing the petitioner to approach the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Rajveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21567 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajveer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashank Maurya,Panchu Ram Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vrindavan Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the gratuity amount which became due to him on his superannuation has not been paid.

¶6

Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the undisputed amount of gratuity has been calculated and the petitioner can approach the respondent authorities. The submission of Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents is that the cheque of the undisputed amount of gratuity shall be paid to the petitioner on demand from respondent no.4. The remaining portion of the gratuity amount is being contested by Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. He submits that part of the gratuity which stands forfeited is a disputed question of fact. The petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of approaching the appropriate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

¶7

The Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to the petitioner and other similarly situated employees by virtue of Regulation 29 of the U.P. Cooperative Sugar Mills and Distillaries Employees Service Regulations, 2015.

¶8

At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is prepare to approach the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. He dose not press the

¶9

relief sought in the writ petition at this stage. He further contends that consequent to filing of the instant writ petition for bonafide reasons the period of limitation for filing the appeal has expired. He prays for enlargement of the period for filing of the appeal.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondents does not have any serious objection to the aforesaid prayer.

¶11

No useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. With consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.

¶12

It is open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for redressal of his grievance of non payment of gratuity. In case the petitioner institutes the proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 within a period of one month, the competent authority shall decide the claim of the petitioner on merits without considering the question of delay.

¶13

The Court has not gone into the veracity of the assertions in the writ petition nor has the claim of the petitioner been judged on merits. It is for the competent authority to do so after independent application of mind.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶15

Order Date :- 25.10.2018

¶16

Pramod

Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.I.C. Officers Association Civil Lines Kanpur and Another Vs Union of India and Another

Vipin Kumar Vs Prathama Bank through Its Chairman, Moradabad and 2 Others

Maya Tripathi Vs Union of India and Another

Rakesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendra Kumar Kushwaha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others