The High Court disposed of the criminal revision appeal against an interim reliefs order refusing a stay on the show-cause notice regarding gratuity forfeiture while staying the hearing of the writ petition.
Respondents directed to finalise the show cause notice; appeal against interim order disposed of.
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.
$~19.
V.K MALHOTRA
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi and Mr. R Madhav Bera, Adv.
versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. O.P. Gaggar, Adv for R-1
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
%
O R D E R 27.07.2017
The order impugned in this appeal is dated 07.02.2017 passed in W.P. (C.) No. 625/2016 and particularly in C.M. No. 2554/2016. By the impugned order, while admitting the writ petition, the learned Single Judge declined the interim relief sought by the appellant in the writ petition.
The submission of counsel for the appellant is that in the aforesaid application apart from seeking stay of the show cause notice dated 23.10.2015 – whereby the respondents proposed to forfeit the gratuity of the appellant, till the disposal of the writ petition, the appellant had also sought a direction to the respondent to at least pay the principal amount of gratuity to the appellant/ petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that on the show cause notice issued to the appellant with regard to forfeiture of gratuity, no order has been passed till date in deference to the proceedings pending in court. He also submits that the respondents have raised a serious objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this court to deal with the writ petition.
In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the present appeal with a direction to the respondents to finalise the show cause notice issued to the appellant. In case the appellant is still aggrieved, it shall be open to him to take appropriate steps in that respect. We have passed this order without going into the issue of jurisdiction.
Considering the fact that the appellant is 67 years of age, the hearing in the writ petition is expedited. The same may be heard by the learned Single Judge within the next one year. It shall be open to the appellant to move an application for early hearing.
The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
JULY 27, 2017 sr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Leave is to be granted to the appeal?
V.K MALHOTRA
UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS
VIPIN SANGHI
REKHA PALLI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
