Dismissed

Raj Kishore Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited And Ors.

Jharkhand HC3 Mar 2014WPC/7577/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. No. 7577 of 2012, the petitioner challenged the Appellate Authority's order refusing interest on delayed gratuity payment. The single-judge Bench relied on a prior judgment in the same matter to find the issue settled and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's claim for interest on delayed gratuity was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Raj Kishore Singh Vs Bharat Coking Coal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 7577 of 2012

¶2

--Raj Kishore Singh -------Petitioner Versus ----Bharat Coking Coal Limited & others --- Respondents ---

¶3

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

¶4

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the BCCL: Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate

¶5

¶6

05/ 03.03.2014 Heard counsel for the parties.

¶7

By Appellate Order dated 31^st August 2012, the respondent no. 2 - Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-cum-Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, has refused the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interest for delayed payment of Gratuity.

¶8

The petitioner admittedly had approached this Court earlier in the writ petition being WPS No. 4726/2007 which was disposed of by judgment dated 8^th April 2010 (Annexure-2). In the said writ petition, apart from other prayer, he had also made a prayer to pay him interest on the total amount of Gratuity on account of the delayed payment. After considering the submissions of the parties, in the concluding paragraph i.e. para-11 of the judgement, it was observed that the petitioner's demand for refund of penal rent and interest on the Gratuity amount for delayed payment, is not tenable and hence, his prayer in terms of the above demands is rejected.

¶9

The petitioner had earlier moved the Controlling Authority for payment of interest on the delayed payment of Gratuity which was however rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority with the same grievance as aforesaid. The Appellate Authority while referring to the judgment passed by this Court in the petitioner's own case being WPS No. 4726/2007, refused to grant interest on the delayed payment of such Gratuity.

¶10

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and after considering the submissions made by the parties, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority as the issue has attained finality in view of the judgment passed in the petitioner's case as aforesaid. Accordingly, no grounds are made out for interference in the impugned order, so far as it relates to the rejection of the claim of interest on delayed payment of Gratuity. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶11

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

¶12

Ranjeet/

Raj Kishore Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kishore Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sidam Kumhar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Nanhu Mochi Alias Prabhat Jee Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ashok Prasad Mehta Vs The State Of Jharkhand

MD Najmuddin Vs Human Resource Development

Birendra Kumar Thakur Vs Labour Employment And Training

Premlata Devi Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Through Its Managing Director And Ors.