Allowed

H.N. Karandikar v. the Cantonment Board and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Aug 2012WP/7226/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition regarding payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Court relied on a previous judgment against the respondent. It directed the appellant authority to pay the deposited amount to the petitioner with interest and absolved the rule accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed; the Appellate Authority was directed to pay the deposited gratuity amount to the petitioner with accrued interest.

H.N. Karandikar Vs the Cantonment Board and Anr. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 wp7226-04

¶2

rpa

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7226 OF 2004

¶5

H. N. Karandikar .. Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The Cantonment Board, Pune & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. S. M. Dharap for the Petitioner. Mr. K. J. Presswala i/b. M/s. Mulla & Mulla for the Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 9^th AUGUST, 2012.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶11

This Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter for Payment of Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, by the Petitioner. The challenge in the Petition was to the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1972.

¶12

Both the counsel fairly pointed out the Judgment passed by this Court in a similarly situated parties on the facts as well on the law and basically of the same Respondents and similarly situated Petitioners. By order dated 13^th August, 2002 in Writ Petitions 518 and 519 of 1994, based upon the Supreme Court Judgment, it is

¶13

2 wp7226-04

¶14

clearly observed in those Petitions and decided against the Petitioner. In those Petitions, the Petitioners were Respondent No.1. The Petitioner herein is entitled for a gratuity as per order dated 23^rd October, 2002, which was in Petitioner's favour along with interest. Respondent No.1 pursuance to the provisions of law, deposited all the amount of Rs.1,01,011/- before the Appellate Authority.

¶15

Once the issue as referred above decided against the Respondent No.1, there is no reason keeping this matter pending. Based upon the same and in view of the conclusions so averred at the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The amount already deposited, now liable to be paid to the Petitioner with accrued interest by the Appellate Authority under the Central Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

¶16

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

H.N. Karandikar v. the Cantonment Board and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.N. Karandikar v. the Cantonment Board and Anr.

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

1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. Vs 1. Municipal Mazdoor Union Mumbai

M/S. Bata India Ltd. Vs Mr. P. R. Ramchandra and Ors.

Mr. Ramesh Bhatia and Ors. Vs Smt. Paurnima Dhanraj Sadbhaya

Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. Vs Mohammed Hanif Gul Syed and Anr.

H.N. Karandikar Vs the Cantonment Board and Anr.

Pandurang Vitthal Patil Vs Philips India Limited