Petitioner claimed withheld gratuity was due to audit objections and excess allowances. Court found no fraud or misrepresentation but noted recovery was made without prior notice, directing respondents to release the amount.
Directed respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to pay Rs. 59,513/- to the petitioner.
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.
1 wp 1310.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1310 OF 2018
Shrikant Baliram Malale .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri R. V. Naiknavare, Advocate h/f Ms. Rani V. Ghogare, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A. R. Kale, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri Vivek Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 11TH JANUARY, 2022.
FINAL ORDER :
. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, amount of gratuity to the extent of Rs. 59,513/- has been withheld.
2 wp 1310.18
service recovery is claimed. No notice was issued to the petitioner of amount allegedly wrongly paid.
[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/Jan.22
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the withholding of gratuity amount of Rs. 59,513/- after retirement without issuing notice amounts to a violation of the petitioner’s rights.
Whether the recovery of Rs. 59,513/- due to excess payment of allowances without prior notice justifies withholding the gratuity.
Shrikant Baliram Malale
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4
S. V. GANGAPURWALA
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
