Sarat Chandra Mishra Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Sarat Chandra Mishra Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to opposite party No.1 to consider the payment of gratuity to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in the light of the Court's order under Annexure-5 and in view of Annexure-1; if found eligible, to pass an order at the earliest, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose gratuity was denied by the decision under Annexure-7 of opposite party No.3, is entitled to payment of gratuity under Section 4 read with Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, particularly when similar benefit has been extended to another employee (Annexure-6).

Court's answer

Since similar relief was provided to one of the employees as revealed from Annexure-6, there lies no reason not to extend the same to the petitioner; his entitlement is to be duly examined by the Government.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.1 to consider the payment of gratuity to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in the light of the Court's order under Annexure-5 and in view of Annexure-1, and if found eligible, to pass an order at the earliest, preferably within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Ss. 4 & 2(s) – writ petition challenging decision under Annexure-7 of opposite party No.3 denying gratuity to the petitioner – identical benefit already extended to another employee (Sri Hadibandhu Majhi) under Annexure-6 pursuant to demand (Annexure-3) and earlier Court order (Annexure-5), with reference to Government decision (Annexure-1) and recommendation of the Law Department (Annexure-4) – held, since similar relief was provided to one employee, there was no reason not to extend the same to the petitioner; entitlement to be duly examined by Government – writ petition disposed of with direction to opposite party No.1 to consider payment of gratuity per the Act, the order under Annexure-5 and Annexure-1, and, if eligible, to pass an order preferably within six weeks.

IN T H E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTT A CK

W.P.(C) No.18120of 2024

Sarat Chandr a Mishra

…. Petitioner

M/s.N.Biswal, Advocate& A ssociates

-Versus-

State of Odis h a & others

…. O p posite Parties Mr. N.K. Praharaj, A GA

C O RAM: MR. J USTICER.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

02.08.2024

This m atter is taken up through virtual mode.

Hear d learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Praharaj, learned AGA a ppearing for the State.

Insta n t writ petition is filed by the petitioner c h allenging the impugned d e cision under Annexure-7 of opposite party No.3, whereby, payment of gratuity has been denied to him t o which he is otherwise entitled to as per Section 4 read with Secti o n 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on the grounds stated t h erein.

Refe r ring to Annexure-6, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petiti o ner that such benefit has been extend e d to one Sri Hadibandhu M ajhi only and not to the petitioner an d he is eligible for the same in view of Anneuxre-1. It is brought to the notice of the Court tha t vide Annexure-3, gratuity was demand e d and on the suggestion o f Law Department Government of O d isha, it was directed to b e disbursed, whereafter,due to non-pa y ment of the

Page 1 of 2

same, W.P.(C) No.24814 of 2021 was filed followe d by an order vide Annexu r e-5 which led to the passing an order (Annexure-6) only in respe c t of the named employee. It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to such gratuity as per the pr o visions of the Payment of G ratuity Act, 1972 and in view of the Government decision und e r Annexure-1 and the recommendatio n of the Law Department, G overnment of Odisha as at Annexure-4.

Reco r ded the submission of Mr. Praharaj, lea r ned AGA for the State.

Since similar relief is provided to one of the employees as revealed fro m Annexure-6, there lies no reason not t o extend the same to the petitioner. It is, therefore, in the consider e d view of the Court, such e n titlement of the petitioner is to be duly examined by Government.

Hence, it is ordered.

In t h e result, the writ petition stands dispo s ed of with a direction to opposite party No.1 to consider the paym e nt of gratuity to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Payme n t of Gratuity Act, 1972 an d in the light of the Court’s order und e r Annexure-5 and in view o f Annexure-1 and in case, he is found to be eligible, to pass an order at the earliest preferably within a perio d of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Urge n t certified copy of the order be issued as per rules.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTCTUDU Date: 05-Aug-2024 12:49:00

Page 2 of 2