Disposed

Mohammad Sabir v. U P State Bridge Corporation Ltd. through Its M.D. Lucknow and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2018WRIA/21911/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a daily wager regularized in 1998, sought gratuity and group insurance under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Court directed the corporation to decide his claim within three months and release the amount if entitled, ensuring timely payment.

What did the court decide?

The respondent No.1 is directed to decide the claim for gratuity within three months of receiving the order and to release the amount within three months of the decision.

Mohammad Sabir Vs U P State Bridge… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21911 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohammad Sabir

¶4

Respondent :- U P State Bridge Corporation Ltd. Through Its M.D. Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod K. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha,Manish Goyal

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Sri Deepakh Kapoor, learned counsel has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.4, the same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Pramod K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri Deepakh Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

¶8

The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a Mechanic on daily wage basis in the respondent corporation with effect from 01.04.1976. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 12.01.1998. The petitioner claims that he was entitled for payment of gratuity and group insurance. The payment of gratuity to daily wagers and work charge employees is governed by the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The applicability of the Act has not been disputed by the respondent corporation. The rights of similarly situated employees of the respondent corporation were considered by a bench of a learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Darshu Ram Vs. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited and another registered as Writ Petition No.5917 of 2012 (S/S) along with other companion writ petitions. This Court in the case of Darshu Ram (supra) entered its judgement on 13.05.2015 holding thus:-

¶9

"3. The petitioners have prayed that opposite parties may be directed to pay the gratuity to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, with interest including all admissible allowances.

¶10

There is no dispute amongst the parties that the petitioners are entitled for payment of gratuity. The only question, which was bothering the opposite parties nos. 1 & 2 on earlier occasions was to the effect that the Government had to grant approval to this payment.

¶11

Learned Chief Standing Counsel has informed that vide order dated 18.7.2014, the State Government has taken a decision that all those employees of the Corporation, who fulfil the conditions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, will be paid gratuity.

¶12

Learned counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2 has

¶13

submitted that he may be granted eight weeks' time to make the payment of gratuity to the petitioners.

¶14

The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed in terms of the prayer of the petitioners on assurance of the opposite parties that the payment will be made to the petitioners in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by the authority concerned."

¶15

In compliance of the orders passed by this Court, a decision was taken by the respondent corporation to grant the benefit of gratuity to all employees, who were eligible for payment of gratuity under the Act. An order to this effect was passed by the Deputy Project Manager, B.C.U. Allahabad, i.e. respondent no.3 on 31.07.2017. The claim of the petitioner has been forwarded by the Project Manager by order dated 31.07.2017 after due verification. The petitioner has also submitted a representation to the respondent authorities in this regard. However, the authorities have not decided the representation of the petitioner till date and the gratuity amount and group insurance have not been paid to him till date.

¶16

The only prayer made by Sri Pramod K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the representation may be decided at the earliest within a stipulated period time frame and the gratuity amount and group insurance may be released to him.

¶17

Sri Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the eligibility of the petitioner for grant of gratuity is not disputed, but the details of his claim have to be verified since the matter pertains to the year 1976 onwards. The records have to be traced out for examining the claim of the petitioner.

¶18

In such view of the matter, the respondent No.1 is directed to decide the claim for grant of gratuity for the period he served in respondent corporation as a daily wager within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with the fresh copy of the representation. In case the petitioner is found entitled for the gratuity amount for the aforesaid period, the respondent No.1 shall ensure that the amount is released within a period of three months from the date of the decision on the representation.

¶19

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 9.10.2018 Pramod

Mohammad Sabir v. U P State Bridge Corporation Ltd. through Its M.D. Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Sabir v. U P State Bridge Corporation Ltd. through Its M.D. Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vineet Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Saurabh Sahu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Abhishek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dasharath Lal Yadav Vs U P State Bridge Corporation Ltd. through Its M.D. Lucknow and 3 Others

Bhupendra Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Paras Bind Vs State of U.P. and another