Dismissed

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr Its Divisional Controller and Anr. v. Amirkhan Rajjak Shaikh

Bombay HC9 May 2024WP/6627/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court held that the Controlling Authority's calculation of gratuity and interest was consistent with a final prior order and refused to interfere, permitting payment within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay the adjudicated amount within six weeks from the date of this order, during which execution shall not proceed.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

16-wp-6627-2024.doc

¶2

Shabnoor

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6627 OF 2024

¶5

SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN

¶6

Digitally signed bySHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date: 2024.05.09 17:47:34 +0530

¶7

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Divisional Controller & Anr … Petitioner

¶8

V/s. Amirkhan Rajjak Shaikh … Respondent

¶9

Mr. Nitesh V. Bhutekar, for Petitioner.

¶10

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶11

DATED : MAY 9, 2024

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

The petitioner is challenging an order dated 17 August 2022 passed by the Controlling Authority under the provisions of Payment and Gratuity Act, 1972 (“the Act”) directing the Collector to recover an amount of gratuity along with interest i.e. Rs.2,56,616/- from the petitioner.

¶14

The Authority under the Act allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 7(4)(b) of the Act. The Authority declared that the respondent is entitled to receive gratuity amount of Rs.5,61,441/- along with simple interest @10% per annum from the date of retirement till its realisation, this order attained finality.

¶15

The respondent, therefore, filed an application for recovery

¶16

¶17

16-wp-6627-2024.doc

¶18

of gratuity by filing application bearing PGA No.02 of 2020. The Controlling Authority under the Act, considered the calculation, which is placed on record by the respondent. The petitioner did not file reply to that application. Therefore, based on material record, the Controlling Authority by the impugned order adjudicated an amount of Rs.2,56,616/- as the amount to be recovered from the petitioner.

¶19

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Controlling Authority has failed to calculate the amount as per law. According to him, the respondent was not entitled to the amount as protected by the Authority and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶20

On perusal of the oral order dated 19 August 2019, which had attained finality. It appears that an amount of Rs.4,92,921/was already deposited by the petitioner which was directed to be deducted, and accordingly the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.68,520/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from July 2019 till its realisation. In the paragraph 6 of the impugned order gives detailed calculation and manner of arriving at actual amount of dues. On its perusal, I am satisfied that the calculation is as per the order dated 19 August 2019. Therefore, no interference in the impugned order is called for.

¶21

However, the petitioner is permitted to pay the amount as per the order dated 17 August 2022 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Act within six weeks from today.

¶22

¶23

16-wp-6627-2024.doc

¶24

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in above terms. No costs.

¶25

For the period of six weeks, the impugned order shall not be executed.

¶26

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶27

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr Its Divisional Controller and Anr. v. Amirkhan Rajjak Shaikh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr Its Divisional Controller and Anr. v. Amirkhan Rajjak Shaikh

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

Valeo India Pvt. Ltd, through Its Authorised Vs Ranjit Balu Hande

Rajesh Bhagwan Rade Vs Vinod Anandrao Mahadik

Narayan Bandu Shendge Decd Thru Lrs Nitin Mahadev Palkhe Vs Pandurang Kondiba Koli Since Decd Thru Lrs Namdev Pandurang Kulkarni

Jai Ambey Emergency Services (I) Private Limited through Ankur Pamnani vs the Commissioner Health Services and Mission Director Nhm, Mumbai Arogya Bhavan

Suresh Velji Bhanushali vs Divya Jiten Nagar and Ors.

Mukesh Radheshyam Soni vs State of Maharashtra