Dismissed

Sri. Lakshmi Narasimha S v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2024WP/4131/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired KSRTC employee sought mandamus for interest on delayed gratuity payment. The court held gratuity claims are governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and must be determined by the competent authority on facts, so relief could not be granted under writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petitioner granted liberty to pursue remedy before appropriate forum.

Sri. Lakshmi Narasimha S Vs the Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:27174 WP No. 4131 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 4131 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA.S. SON OF S.R.SRINIVASA IYENGAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RETIRED JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER, KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, R/A NO.10, KABADI RESIDENCY, GROUND FLOOR, 9^TH MAIN, 9^TH BLOCK, VINAYAKA HOUSE BUILDING, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LAYOUT, VHBCS, NAGARABHAVI II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072.

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.P.GANESH GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT HOUSE, K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. …RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:27174 WP No. 4131 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Sri.H.P.Gangesh Gowda., learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶20

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Corporation to pay an interest amount of Rs.2,18,315/- (Rupees Two Lakh Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred and Fifteen only) from the date of his retirement at 10% per annum as per the provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 along with interest at 12% per annum till the date of payment from 23.09.2021 i.e., the date of cheque as per Annexure-D for the deliberate delay in payment of gratuity amount.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶22

A careful perusal of the relief sought by the

¶23

petitioner would reveal that he is seeking a certain gratuity amount along with interest from the Corporation. There is no

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:27174 WP No. 4131 of 2024

¶25

basis to claim the amount. Furthermore, any claim regarding gratuity is governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Based on the facts and circumstances of the each case, the competent authority determines the amount. Hence, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be accorded under Writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶27

If at all the petitioner has any grievance, he may agitate the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law, if so permits.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri. Lakshmi Narasimha S v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Lakshmi Narasimha S v. the Managing Director

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

Central Board of Trustees Vs Sree Ganesh Gears

Bhojaraju S Vs the Managing Director

Ashwathappa Vs the Divisional Controller

J H Shivarama Reddy Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority

M. Prabhakara Vs the Divisional Controller

G. v. Umesh Vs the Managing Director