This order dismisses a writ petition seeking gratuity, arrears, and interest for a deceased teacher. The High Court held the application vague due to lacunae in pleadings regarding the delayed payment amount and dates, preventing a specific order on the interest claim.
The writ application was dismissed due to vague and laconic pleadings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3884/2004 Sanjay Govil Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.
Date of Order :::: 07.05.2014
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
None present, for the petitioner. Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, Dy.G.C, for the Staterespondents.
The instant writ proceedings were initiated in the year 2004 claiming payment of amount of gratuity, arrears and other benefits due to late Smt.Veena Govil; who was appointed as a teacher in the year 1965 and died on 29th October, 1998, while in service.
Neither the petitioner nor the counsel for the petitioner is present in the Court to pursue the matter.
Heard the learned counsel for the respondents.
The learned counsel for the respondents reiterating the pleaded stand in the reply to the writ application argued that the delay in release of the payment of gratuity and other benefits, was on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner
2
for not filing form No.12 despite he was called upon to do so by registered letter Dated 22nd February, 2005 and 10th March, 2005. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had been informed vide communication dated 12th December, 2013, that all the sons of the deceased employee are major and therefore are not entitled to pension. Further, the dues on account of gratuity and other monetary benefits have already been released. Therefore, nothing material survives in the instant writ application for determination by this Court.
After having dictated the order to extent above, the learned counsel Mr.Anil Jain, appeared on behalf of the petitioner and gave out that the payment, if released, as informed by the learned counsel for the respondents has been delayed and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest. There are no details and pleadings available on record as to when and what amount of payment was due that has already been received by the petitioner. In absence of necessary details of amount due and date of payment as well as other essential material facts and
3
particulars in the pleadings; this Court finds difficult to pass any order with reference to the claim of interest. The writ application is vague and suffers with the vice of laconic pleadings.
In view of the above, the writ proceedings, in the form and pleaded contents, which are absolutely vague, cannot be sustained and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.
Pcg
All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. P.C.Gupta, P.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition claiming gratuity and interest is maintainable when pleadings are vague and lack essential particulars regarding the amount dues.
Whether the delay in payment was due to petitioner's negligence or extenuating circumstances justifying the claim for interest.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjay Govil
The State of Rajasthan and Others
VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
