Dismissed¶15

Doneldson Dass v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2024WRIA/16076/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of successive writ petitions on the same cause of action; bar on fresh writ petition after earlier dismissal; remedy against alleged apparent error in prior order; interest on delayed payment of gratuity; Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, Section 7(3-A); mandamus; gratuity withheld after retirement on 31.10.2013; Rs. 3,01,860/- credited as interest; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; J.J. Munir, J.; WRIT - A No. 16076 of 2024; prior orders in Writ-A No. 14238 of 2022 and Writ-A No. 4263 of 2023 (order dated 28.04.2023); dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Successive writ petitions on the same cause of action cannot be entertained; the present petition seeking interest on delayed gratuity is not maintainable. ¶14

Doneldson Dass Vs State of Up and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:169073

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16076 of 2024 Petitioner :- Doneldson Dass Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at great length and Mr. Jitendra Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State respondents.

¶6

This petition has been filed with a prayer that a mandamus be issued to the Assistant Director, Soil Testing/Culture, Regional Soil Testing Laboratory, Prayagraj Region, Prayagraj to pay interest on the delayed disbursement of gratuity to the petitioner in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity of Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act of 1972') .

¶7

The petitioner earlier moved Writ- A No. 14238 of 2022 where he raised a grievance that his gratuity was withheld though he had retired from service on 31.10.2013 but, going without gratuity. He had sought a direction to pay interest at that time. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the fourth respondent to pay the petitioner's gratuity forthwith preferably within one month of the date of production of a certified copy of the order passed in the said writ petition, if there was no legal impediment. There was a further direction that, if there was no fault on the petitioner's part, he would also be entitled to interest on the delayed payment of gratuity, strictly in accordance with law and that claim of the petitioner's shall also be considered within the period of time stipulated.

¶8

The petitioner, it appears, was paid gratuity but no interest. He, therefore, instituted Writ- A No. 4263 of 2023 claiming the following reliefs:

¶9

"i. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.4 to pay the interest on delayed payment of gratuity amount to the petitioner @ 18% per annum till the date of actual payment.

¶10

ii. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.4 to decide the pending representation dated 02.11.2022 of the petitioner with reasoned and speaking order within set time schedule as directed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶11

In this writ petition, learned Standing Counsel on instructions stated that interest had been paid on the delayed disbursement of gratuity and credited in the petitioner's account, a fact which the petitioner did not dispute. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed virtually as infructuous though that word was not employed by the Court in the order dated 28.04.2023 while deciding Writ- A No. 4263 of 2023.

¶12

Now, the petitioner has come up with a prayer that he may be paid interest on the delayed disbursement of gratuity in accordance with the Act of 1972.

¶13

It is averred in paragraph no. 18 of the writ petition that, after the order was passed in Writ- A No. 4263 of 2023 on 28.04.2023, the petitioner came to know that a sum of Rs. 3,01,860-/ had been credited to his account under the head of interest and that it was apparently against the provisions of Section 7(3-A) of the Act of 1972. He, therefore, moved another representation seeking further interest in terms provided by the Act of 1972.

¶14

This Court is afraid that successive petitions, on the same cause of action, cannot be entertained. This petition is clearly not maintainable. If the petitioner thinks that the order dated 28.04.2023 suffers from an apparent error on account of the statement made by the learned Standing Counsel which was incorrect in that, that the requisite relief on account of interest was not given to the petitioner, the petitioner can avail his remedies against the order dated 28.04.2023 as advised. In no case, does he have a right to institute a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action.

¶15

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.10.2024 Prashant D.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PRASHANT DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Doneldson Dass v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doneldson Dass v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases