Disposed

Shri Sanatan Dharam Sr.Sec.School and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 Aug 2015CW/236/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the excess payment of gratuity to a retired teacher. The court held that since the principal amount awarded exceeded the statutory limit of Rs. 50,000, the interest component would be deemed adjusted in the sum already paid, resulting in no further recovery.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of W.P. with no order as to costs; petitioner not to recover any sum nor pay the interest claimed by the respondent.

Shri Sanatan Dharam Sr.Sec.School and Anr… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER

¶3

Shri Sanatan Dharam vs. The State of Raj. Sr.Secondary School & ors. & anr.

¶4

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 236/2001 under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶5

Date of Order: 11^th August, 2015

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶8

Mr. S.L. Jain ,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.R.Chawla, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶9

BY THE COURT:

¶10

The present writ petition has been filed to challenge the order passed by the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Sri Ganganagar on 7.6.2000 directing payment of Rs.82,855/- along with 10% interest to the respondent no.4.

¶11

The petitioner is a school running in Sri Ganganagar and respondent no.4 was appointed as a teacher on 14.8.1961. On completion of service, the petitioner retired on 12.11.1993 and at the time of retirement, he was getting the basic pay of Rs.2000/-. Thereafter, the respondent moved an application under Rule 10 of the Rules of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 , “the Act” for short claiming payment of gratuity. The matter was contested and after hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act held vide its judgment dated 7.6.2000 that respondent no.4 would be entitled to gratuity of Rs. 82,855/- along with 10% interest. Aggrieved against the order dated

¶12

¶13

7.6.2000, the present writ petition has been preferred by the Institution.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the authorities have failed to consider the fact that the school was an aided institution and was receiving only 80% aid from the Government and while fixing the liability for payment of gratuity upon the petitioner, the liability should have been fixed upon the State Government as well. It has been argued that the respondent no 4 ought to have approached the Educational Tribunal for any grievance and not the prescribed authority under the Act. It has also been argued by the counsel that the authorities had exceeded its jurisdiction in so far as Section 4(3) of the Act prescribes that payment of gratuity under the Act shall not exceed a sum of Rs.50,000/-.

¶15

Per contra, counsel for respondent no.4 has submitted that employees of private institutions are also entitled to get gratuity when they retire. Moreover, it is contended that after his retirement, the respondent no longer remained an employee of the petitioner-institution and hence there was no occasion for him to approach the educational Tribunal either under Section 19 or Section 21 of the Act.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.

¶17

Admittedly, the respondent retired from service of the petitioner-institution in the year 1993 and then moved an application under Rule 10 of the Rules framed under the

¶18

¶19

Payment of Gratuity Act on 9.6.1998. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, held that the petitioner would be entitled to gratuity of Rs. 82,855/- along with 10% interest.

¶20

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitionerinstitution has already made a payment to the respondent of a sum of Rs. 82,855/- and the question that now survives is on the payment of interest.

¶21

Section 4 (3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is reproduced hereunder:-

¶22

“ 4(3) The amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed fifty thousand rupees.”

¶23

9 . Admittedly,as per section 4(3) the Act, the authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding a sum beyond Rs 50,000/- to respondent no 4 who has already received sum of Rs. 82,855/-. Therefore instead of allowing a recovery of a sum beyond Rs 50,000/- the end of justice will be served if the interest component payable to the respondent no. 4 is deemed to have been so adjusted in the amount already received. The petitioner will not make any recoveries of any sums nor pay the interest as claimed by the respondent.

¶24

In view of the above the, writ petition is disposed off with no order as to costs.

¶25

(JAISHREE THAKUR), J.

¶26

mlt.

Shri Sanatan Dharam Sr.Sec.School and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sanatan Dharam Sr.Sec.School and Anr. v. State and Ors.

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

Prema Ram Parmar Vs State

State of Raj. Vs Darshan Ram and Anr.

Kayam Singh Vs State and Ors.

Ram Prasad Jajoo Vs State and Ors.

Om Prakash Yadav Vs State and Ors.

Jagdish Gir Vs State and Ors.