Dismissed

Ashok Nilkanth Subhedar v. Pune District Central Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2008WP/797/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Appellate Side, dismissed the writ petition challenging orders under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court held that an employee retiring before a revised scheme's applicability cannot claim benefits under it, nor can State Government Resolutions be invoked instead. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction to pay gratuity or interest.

Ashok Nilkanth Subhedar Vs Pune District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.797 of 2007

¶3

Shri Ashok Nilkanth Subhedar. .. .. Petitioner v/s. Pune District Central Sahakari Bank Ltd. & ors. .. .. .. Respondents Mr.A.P. Kulkarni for petitioner. Mr.V.B.Tapkir for respondent No.1.

¶4

Mr.Suresh Kumar for respondent No.5.

¶5

¶6

CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ.

¶7

Dated : 8^th January 2008

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1.The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.9.2006 passed by the 2^nd respondent-Appellate Authority and the order dated 15.4.2004 passed by the 3^rd respondentControlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner has prayed that the 1^st respondent may be directed to pay the petitioner the full gratuity payable to him as per the revised scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled in law to 18% interest from the date of entitlement and heavy costs as penalty for the delay in payment.

¶10

¶11

2.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. Admittedly, the petitioner has retired on 31.10.1996. The petitioner chose to file an application under Section 10 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on State Government Resolution dated 15^th November 1999. In our opinion, since the petitioner has filed an application under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he cannot draw support from any of the State Government Resolutions. Besides, this point was never raised earlier.

¶12

3.Learned Counsel submitted that if the State Government Resolution is held not applicable, this court may consider the fact that the 1^st respondent-bank should grant him benefit of LIC Group Gratuity Scheme. It is not possible for us to accept this submission also. The 2^nd respondentAppellate Authority in its order has observed that the said Scheme was made applicable to the 1^st respondent-bank on 1.4.1997 and admittedly, the petitioner has retired on 31.10.1996. Therefore, he cannot get advantage of the said scheme. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the impugned orders. The petition cannot be entertained and is, therefore, dismissed.

¶13

(SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.)

Ashok Nilkanth Subhedar v. Pune District Central Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Nilkanth Subhedar v. Pune District Central Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhartiya Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union Vs the Security Guards Board and Ors.

Shabnam Altaf Pardiwala and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Swami Samarth Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporation Kalyan-Dombivali Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Kashyap Sahakari Griharachana Sanstha Mydt. Vs Registrar and Commissioner Co-Operative Societies and Ors.

Rajani R. Pandit and Anr. Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr.

The Sangli Bank Ltd. Vs Ravindra Dhondiram Shinde and Ors.