Writ petition filed seeking direction to re-fix gratuity considering ad-hoc and regular service. Court disposed petition directing respondent to decide representation within two months via reasoned order.
Direction to respondent no.4 to decide petitioner's representation regarding gratuity re-fixation within two months by reasoned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14613 of 2020
Petitioner :- Mahesh Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.K Asthana,Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondents to refix/re-determine the amount of Gratuity payable to the petitioner by considering his entire service period i.e. Ad-hoc & Regular both as "qualifying service", in accordance with law and to pay the difference amount with suitable interest;
II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.4, the Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), 12th Region, Moradabad to decide the petitioner's representation dated 24.01.2020 and 10.09.2020 (Annexure No.11), regarding re-fixation/re-determinatioin of the amount of Gratuity payable to the petitioner by taking into account his entire service period (Ad-hoc & Regular both) as qualifying service, in accordance with law, within a suitable time as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to fix in the interest of justice."
It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the gratuity was paid to the petitioner without considering his ad-hoc services w.e.f. 0308.1982 to 06.04.1991.
It is further contended that in this regard the petitioner represented the matter before the Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), 12th Region, Moradabad but the same has not been decided till date.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no no objection in case the direction is issued to the concerned respondent to decide the petitioner's representation within stipulated time by a reasoned and speaking order.
Under these circumstances, no useful purpose will served in keeping the writ petition, hence, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent nos.4 to look into the grievances of the petitioner and decide the representation dated 24.01.2020 and 10.09.2020 (Annexure No.11), filed by the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a computerized copy of this order by a reasoned and speaking order.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 12.1.2021 S.P.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority should decide the petitioner's representation regarding the re-fixation of gratuity amount by considering his entire service period including ad-hoc services.
Whether the High Court should direct the respondent to dispose of the representation expeditiously.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahesh Prasad
State Of U.P.
Rajiv Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
