Dismissed

Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and Others v. Kewal Krishan and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jan 2023CWP/1168/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Certiorari petition filed under Article 226 sought quashing of orders dismissing an appeal regarding gratuity calculation. The court noted counsel conceded the regularization date relates back to initial appointment, rejecting the claim for excess jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed.

Punjab State Cooperative Supply and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP-1168-2023 (O&M) Date of decision-20.01.2023

¶3

Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and another

¶4

...Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Kewal Krishan and others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ

¶9

Present: Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

¶11

MANOJ BAJAJ, J. (Oral)

¶12

Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of order dated 20.06.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the official respondent No.3-Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Mohali under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the appeal of the petitioner, under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 filed against the order dated 08.06.2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2-Controlling Authority-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bathinda, was dismissed.

¶13

Learned counsel has argued that the services of respondent No.1-Kewal Krishan were regularized w.e.f. 24.06.1992 as Junior Assistant and after his retirement on 31.03.2018, the gratuity was rightly calculated as

¶14

GEETA RANI 2023.02.23 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶15

CWP-1168-2023 (O&M) -2-

¶16

Rs.7,85,672/-, which was released to him and the petitioner’s claim relating to the adhoc service period w.e.f. 14.01.1988 till the date of regularization i.e. 24.06.1992 cannot be counted for the purposes of gratuity, therefore, the Controlling Authority exceeded its jurisdiction in accepting the claim of respondent No.1, thereby directing the petitioners to make the payment of balance gratuity amount of Rs.1,30,946/- along with 18% interest w.e.f. 1.4.2018 till the date of payment. He submits that against the impugned order dated 08.06.2021 (Annexure P-3), an appeal was filed, however, the Appellate Authority maintained the decision passed by the Controlling Authority, however, awarded interest @ 9% per annum. Learned counsel has argued that the impugned orders are not sustainable, therefore, the interference is called for by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 Constitution of India.

¶17

During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel that respondent No.1 served as an adhoc employee w.e.f. 14.1.1988 till 24.6.1992, when his services were regularized and for this delay in regularizing the services of respondent No.1, the employee cannot be blamed. It is also conceded by the learned counsel that though respondent No.1 was to retire in March, 2016, but he was granted extension upto March, 2018. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority shows that they have rightly accepted the claim of respondent No.1 as the regularization of the employee would relate back to his period of initial appointment in the year 1988.

¶18

GEETA RANI 2023.02.23 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶19

-3-

¶20

CWP-1168-2023 (O&M)

¶21

Resultantly, no case is made out for interference. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶22

		(MA	NOJ BAJAJ) JUDGE
20.01.2023
geeta
	Whether speaking/reasoned :	Yes	No
	Whether Reportable :	Yes	No

¶23

GEETA RANI 2023.02.23 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and Others v. Kewal Krishan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and Others v. Kewal Krishan and Others

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

Ravinder Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Amrik Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Shweta Sheokand Vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission and Another

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Gurbhej Singh Alias Bheja Vs State of Punjab

Darshan Kaur Alias Darsho Vs State of Punjab