Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur Thr. Dean and Ors. v. Ramraj S/O Kamalprasad Tiwari

Bombay HC19 Aug 2024WP/1262/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State sought to challenge a Controlling Authority order directing payment of gratuity to a retired employee, contending the Act excludes government employees. The High Court found the explanation for delay unsatisfactory, declined to entertain the petition, but left jurisdiction open for enforcement proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Indira Gandhi… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

54-wp-1262-24.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (WP) No. 1262 of 2024

¶5

The State of Maharashtra through Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Central Avenue Road, Nagpur through its Dean and others

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Ramraj S/o Kamalprasad Tiwari

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶9

Court's or Judge's Order

¶10

Shri Alap Phalsikar, AGP for the petitioners. Shri N.S. Warulkar, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

CORAM : N.R.BORKAR, J. DATED : 19^th AUGUST, 2024.

¶12

This petition takes exception to the order dated 22^nd September, 2021 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as “ the Act”).

¶13

The respondent herein had filed an application under Section 4 of the Act. By the impugned order the competent authority has allowed the said application and directed the present petitioners to pay the gratuity amount of Rs.2,60,739/- to the respondent.

¶14

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners submits that the respondent was the

¶15

SKNair

¶16

2 54-wp-1262-24.odt

¶17

State Government employee at the time of his retirement. It is submitted that the Act is not applicable to the State Government employees as Section 2(e) of the Act excludes persons who holds a post with the Central or State Government. It is submitted that the Controlling Authority has thus erred in entertaining the application filed by the respondent.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the contention in relation to jurisdiction to entertain the application was not raised before the Controlling Authority. It is submitted the Act provides for remedy of appeal against the order of Controlling Authority. It is submitted that there is no explanation as to why the appeal was not filed. It is further submitted that the petition suffers from delay and laches as the same is filed after two years from the date of passing of the impugned order.

¶19

In rebuttal, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that under the Act the Appellate Authority is empowered to condone the delay of 60 days only. It is submitted that the procedural approvals were not received by that time and thus appeal could not be filed.

¶20

The explanation in relation to delay reads

thus:

SKNair

3 54-wp-1262-24.odt

“9. It is humbly submitted that the matter came to be allotted for drafting to the concerned Assistant Government Pleader on 23.11.2022. On perusal of the submitted documents, the concerned A.G.P. required relevant documents from the office of petitioner No. 1 vide telephonic communication. Thereafter the representative of the petitioner No.1 attended the office of the Government Pleader and the concerned Assistant Government Pleader required the petitioner Nos. 1 to submit the relevant documents. Further the concerned Assistant Government Pleader also sought written guidance from the petitioner to challenge the impugned judgment before this Hon’ble Court. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner No.1 attended with required documents on 30.8.2023 and immediately petition came to be drafted. After providing of the petition, the same as forwarded to the office of the petitioner No.2 vide communication dated 19.12.2023. The draft petition came to be approved by the office of petitioner No.2 vide communication dated 23.1.2024 and thereafter the present Writ Petition is being filed.

¶25

It is humbly submitted that certain delay has occurred in order to approaching this Hon’ble Court against the impugned judgment, for the reasons stated hereinabove. The delay if any, has been caused due to administrative procedural requirement and gathering of certain relevant documents, which is bonafide and need favourable consideration by this Hon’ble Court.”

¶26

The explanation is not satisfactory. From 23^rd November, 2022 till 30^th August, 2023, the matter was pending for drafting for want of relevant documents. I am therefore not inclined to entertain the

¶27

SKNair

¶28

4 54-wp-1262-24.odt

¶29

present petition. However, it would be open to the petitioners to raise the issue of jurisdiction in proceedings if filed for enforcement of the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.

¶30

SKNair

The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur Thr. Dean and Ors. v. Ramraj S/O Kamalprasad Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur Thr. Dean and Ors. v. Ramraj S/O Kamalprasad Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangadhar S/O Vishwasrao Tembhekar Vs Gram Panchayat, Datewadi, Nagpur Thr. Its Secretary

Mainabai Wd/O Daulatrao Shirpurkar Thr. P.O.A. Holder, Sheshrao S/O Daulatrao Shirpurkar and Others Vs Ashok S/O Laxmanrao Gandhe

Bhagwan Baba Matsya Vyavasaya Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Gargundi, Buldhana Vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Fisheries, Mumbai and Ors.

Sunita Laxmanrao Shende (Mrs. Sunita W/O Chandrashekhar Choudhari) vs Dy. Director and Member Secy., the. S. T. Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and Ors.

Sabina Lakdawala vs Feroze Y Lakdawala and Ors.

Mrs Sunita Narayanrao Lonare vs State of Maharashtra