Allowed

Rohitash Singh v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2019WRIA/13435/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition seeking release of balance gratuity withheld after retirement. The court held that no ceiling can be placed on gratuity payment under the relevant Regulations 1975, despite the Gratuity Act limit, and directed payment within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay balance gratuity of Rs. 5,67,000/- without the ten-lac ceiling limit within four months.

Rohitash Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13435 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Rohitash Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indresh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Lal

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kundan Rai, holding brief of Sri Indresh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Kumar Lal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1.

¶6

The present writ petition seeks a direction for release of the balance amount of gratuity which is said to be withheld by the respondent-authorities.

¶7

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner retired from the post of the Junior Branch Manager after attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2018 and thereafter he was paid an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 07.05.2018 leaving a balance of Rs. 5,67,000/-.

¶8

Sri Ashok Kumar Lal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 fairly submits that there is no requirement to file any counter affidavit as the controversy is covered by the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-A No. 14364 of 2016, Sugvir Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 others and also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ-A No. 18561 of 2018, Maharaj Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, in terms of which an identical question came to be decided by this Court and it was held that no ceiling could be placed in the matter of payment of gratuity and a direction was issued to the respondentauthority to pay the balance amount of gratuity in terms of Regulation 95 of the U.P. Co-operative Employees Service Regulations, 1975.

¶9

Having regard to the facts of the case and in view of the aforementioned legal position, this writ petition is also allowed and a direction is issued to the respondent No.2- Secretary/Chief Executive Officer, District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bijnor to pay gratuity to the petitioner in terms of Regulation 95 of the Regulations, 1975 without putting any ceiling of rupees ten lacs as provided under the Gratuity Act, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶10

Order Date :- 11.9.2019 Imroz

¶11

(Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.)

Rohitash Singh v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohitash Singh v. State of U P and 2 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

Chandra Bhushan Vs State of Up through Principal Secretary Nagar Vikas Lucknow and 2 Others

Ram Ayodhaya Prasad Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Ghaziabad and Another

U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru Its R.M. Vikasnagar Kanpur Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nishu Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Kanpur Nagar Vs Sri Ganga Ram and Others

Ram Mohan Saini Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others