Dismissed

Indrajit Singh Namdev v. the Chief Executive Officer

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jun 2024WPS/175/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging Appellate Authority orders denying enhanced gratuity. The court held that the 20-lakh ceiling amendment is prospective only and State circulars do not override statutory limits for those retired before the amendment. Petitioner dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition asking for quashment of the Appellate Authority's orders rejecting the petitioner's claim for enhanced gratuity was dismissed.

Indrajit Singh Namdev Vs the Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 175 of 2020

¶5

Indrajit Singh Namdev S/o Late Shri D.S. Namdev Aged About 64 Years Retired Bank Officer, R/o House No. 102, Behind Collectorate Nehruward, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Chief Executive Officer Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶9

Appellate Authrority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 Cum Deputy Labour Commissioner Office Labour Commissioner Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Controlling Authrority Payment Of Gratuity Act, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : None. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

18.06.2024

¶16

The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing orders passed by the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Cum - Deputy Labour Commissioner on 27.03.2019 and 05.11.2019 in Appeal No. 152/P.G.A./2018.

¶17

Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner was an employee of the Cooperative Bank, Ambikapur and he was superannuated on 30.04.2017. He worked for 37 years and at the time of his retirement his monthly salary was Rs. 63,248/-. The respondent bank did not pay him gratuity therefore, he

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

moved an application before the Controlling Authority on 10.08.2017 under the Payment of Gratuity Act which was registered as Case No. 07/PGA/2017. The respondent Bank filed reply. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 21.02.2018 assessed the gratuity amount to the tune of Rs. 1350101/- and directed to the respondent -Bank to pay within 30 days failing which to pay 10% interest. Being aggrieved with the order of the Controlling Authority, the respondent Bank preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972- Cum- Deputy Labour Commissioner which was registered as Appeal No. 152/P.G.A./2018.

¶20

The Appellate Authority passed two orders, on 27.03.2019 and 05.11.2019. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.03.2019 recorded its finding that as per Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act the maximum limit of gratuity would be Rs. 10 Lakhs. Vide order dated 05.11.2019, learned Appellate Authority rejected the contention raised by the petitioner that he be given gratuity to the limit of 20 Lakhs in view of the fact that vide order dated 29.03.2018 the maximum ceiling of the gratuity amount has been enhanced from 10 lakhs to 20 lakhs whereas the petitioner stood retired on 30.04.2017, thus, it may be given retrospective effect.

¶21

When the matter was called on 14.06.2024, the Court was informed that the matter will be argued by its counsel, the matter was passed over. Today, when the matter was called no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, the case is decided on the basis of materials available on record. By way of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashment of both the orders passed by the learned Appellate Authority on the count that the learned Appellate Authority has not considered the notification dated 10.07.2018 and 06.11.2017 which clearly state that from 01.01.2016, the amount of gratuity has been enhanced from 10 lakhs to 20 lakhs.

¶22

From bare perusal of the Circular dated 06.11.2017, it is quite vivid that the circular has been issued by the State Government

¶23

Page 3 of 3

¶24

as per the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 whereby the maximum gratuity has been enhanced to 20 lakhs from 10 lakhs whereas the entitlement of the gratuity to the petitioner is governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and when the petitioner retired on 30.04.2017 there was maximum ceiling of amount of gratuity was Rs. 10 Lakhs, therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that he is entitled to get gratuity to tune of Rs. 13,50,101/- is misconceived and deserved to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected.

¶25

Further submission of the petitioner as reflected from the record is that according to the petitioner he is entitled to get gratuity to the tune of Rs. 20 Lakhs in view of the amendment made in the Payment of Gratuity Act is also misconceived and deserved to be rejected as the Central Government has amended the Payment of Gratuity Act as per Section 4(3) of the Act the maximum ceiling has been enhanced to Rs. 20 lakhs on 29.03.2018 much after superannuation of the petitioner. The Parliament in its wisdom has clarified that this amendment will be applicable prospectively only that is from the date of publication in the Gazette whereas the petitioner stood retired on 30.04.2017, therefore, the benefit of the notification cannot be given to the petitioner with retrospective effect.

¶26

In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Appellate Authority on 27.03.2019 (Annexure P/1) and 05.11.2019 (Annexure P/2).

¶27

Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit and it is dismissed.

¶28

Sd-

¶29

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶30

Judge

¶31

Deshmukh

Indrajit Singh Namdev v. the Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajit Singh Namdev v. the Chief Executive Officer

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

Ram Bharosa Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Salikram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shridhar Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Dixit Now Died Thru- Lrs. 1. Smt. Shanti Dixit Vs Ganga Prasad Kashyap

Dhananjay Kumar Hirwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh