Jharkhand State Electricity Bo v. Jai Prakash Sinha and Ors.

Jharkhand HC9 Apr 2024WPC/5497/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: successor-entity liability for gratuity after State bifurcation (Bihar/Jharkhand); Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, Section 4(2) claim before Controlling Authority; employer exemption by government notification; Bihar State Electricity Board exemption Notification No.2754 dated 15.09.2003 retrospective from 06.11.1987; employee of Bihar SEB retiring January 1995 before formation of Jharkhand; Jharkhand SEB (now JUVNL) writ allowed ex-parte under Article 226; Controlling Authority order set aside; interest @8% from 01.03.1995; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.10.2007 set aside; writ petition allowed. ¶unnumbered, following para 7

Jharkhand State Electricity Bo Vs Jai Prakash… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 16.10.2007 set aside; writ petition allowed.

¶unnumbered, following para 7

Issue for consideration

Whether the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now JUVNL) can be saddled with liability to pay gratuity to an employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board who retired before the bifurcation of the State of Bihar.

¶6

Court's answer

The question whether the State of Jharkhand had issued such exemption notification was not relevant for consideration, as the employee had retired from service much before creation of the State of Jharkhand and was an employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Under the notification dated 15.09.2003, applied with retrospective effect from 06.11.1987, respondent no.1 was not entitled to payment of gratuity.

¶7

Key takeaways

The impugned order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner cum Controlling Authority, Dumka dated 16.10.2007 is unsustainable and is set aside.ratio¶unnumbered, following para 7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi | W.P.(C) No. 5497 of 2009 | Oral order dated 09.04.2024 | Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. (ex-parte, respondents absent). Allowed the Jharkhand State Electricity Board's writ petition under Article 226 and set aside the order dated 16.10.2007 of the Deputy Labour Commissioner cum Controlling Authority, Dumka (P.G. Case No.01 of 2002), which had granted a deceased Bihar State Electricity Board employee (retired January 1995, i.e. before bifurcation of Bihar) gratuity of Rs.1,01,809/- with interest @8% from 01.03.1995, totalling Rs.1,96,152/-. Held: the question whether the State of Jharkhand had issued an exemption notification was not relevant, since the employee retired long before the creation of Jharkhand and was an employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board; under the Bihar Labour Department's Notification No.2754 dated 15.09.2003, applied retrospectively from 06.11.1987, respondent no.1 was not entitled to payment of gratuity.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 5497 of 2009

¶2

¶3

Jharkhand State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, JSEB, Ranchi

¶4

Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi

¶5

… …. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

1(a). Jai Prakash Sinha 1(b). Om Prakash Sinha 1(c). Manoj Kumar Sinha 1(d). Vinod Kumar Sinha

¶8

1. The Audit Controller, Vidhut Bhawan, Patna 3. Joint Secretary, Vidhut Bhawan, Patna … …. Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

----For the Petitioners : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate For the Respondents : None

¶12

¶13

Oral Order 17 / Dated : 09.04.2024

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶15

None appeared on behalf of the respondents and ex-parte hearing proceeding is being drawn.

¶16

The instant Writ Petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 16.10.2007 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner cum Controlling Authority, Dumka in P.G. Case No.01 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the application of respondent no.1 (since deceased) was allowed with a direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.1,01,809/- along with interest @8% since 01.03.1995 amounting to total Rs.1,96,152/- within a period of 30 days before the competent authority.

¶17

Respondent No.1 was admittedly an employee of Bihar State Electricity Board who was appointed on 24.11.1955 and retired from the service on 30.01.1995 from the post of Accountant, Selection Grade and at the time of retirement, he was drawing a sum of Rs.7369/-. He filed an application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Dumka for the payment of amount of Gratuity of Rs.64,844/- under Section 4(2) of the Payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972 for his period of his service.

¶18

The respondent No.1 was denied the amount of Gratuity by the Bihar State Electricity Board on the ground that the exemption of paying the Gratuity by the Bihar State Electricity Board to its employees was granted vide

¶19

¶20

Notification No.2754 of Labour Department, Dated 15.09.2003 with retrospective effect from 06.11.1987.

¶21

However, learned court below passed the order considering the plea of the petitioner that such exemption was not made by the State of Jharkhand.

¶22

The order has been assailed on the ground that the original applicant, Sri Jagarnnath Prasad Sinha had retired from the service on 31.01.1995 and, therefore, the question of exemption being granted by the State of Jharkhand did not arise as the State of Jharkhand had not come into existence when the original Petitioner retired from service. The notification issued by the State of Bihar exempting the Bihar State Electricity Board will apply and the order passed in the teeth of the notification exempting the Jharkhand State Electricity Board from making payment.

¶23

After having considered the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, the matter for consideration is whether Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now JUVNL) can be saddled with liability to pay the gratuity to the employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board who retired from service on 31.01.1995 before bifurcation of the State of Bihar.

¶24

On perusal of the order passed by the court below, it appears that the main ground, on which the application was allowed, was that there was no notification exempting the employer from payment of gratuity by the State of Jharkhand, as ordered by the State of Bihar. This Court is of the view that the question whether the State of Jharkhand had issued such exemption was not relevant for consideration in the present case, as the employee had retired from service much before creation of the State of Jharkhand and was the employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board. Under the notification dated 15.09.2003 which was applied with retrospective effect from 06.11.1987, respondent no. 1 was not entitled to payment of gratuity.

¶25

Under the circumstance, the impugned order is unsustainable and is, accordingly, set aside.

¶26

Writ petition is allowed.

¶27

Pending I. A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶28

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶29

AKT/Satendra

¶30

Uploaded