news details |
|
|
| HC quashes order passed by Court of Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Feb 24: A bench of High Court has quashed the order dated 13.03.2017 passed by the Court of Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as order dated 05.06.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Act.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the facts giving rise to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The private respondent was appointed as a teacher in the Cooperative school of Education and Research Institute, Jammu on 01.04.1981 and thereafter, she was promoted to the post of Headmaster.
After rendering more than 31 years of service, she sought voluntary retirement and ultimately retired on 08.09.2012. It is case of the petitioner that at the time of retirement, she was drawing a salary of Rs. 7,832/- The private respondent filed an application on 17.02.2016 before the respondents, Controlling Authority under the Act, claiming gratuity to the tune of Rs. 1,66,560/-which was withheld by the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner issued the cheque, but the same was not accepted by the private respondent.
The counsel further contended that the Controlling Authority, vide order dated 13.03.2017 allowed the application preferred by the private respondent and directed the Co-operative Society to pay a sum of Rs. 2, 18,000/- within a period of 30 days. Being aggrieved, the Co-operative Society preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.06.2017. In this factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
When the matter was taken up today, counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has unnecessary been saddled with the interest in terms of Rule 7 (3A) of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 inasmuch as the private respondent has not applied for payment of gratuity and as and when she demanded the amount of gratuity, the same was paid to her. It is further submitted that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount as directed by the Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority under the Act before the respondent No. 2.
On the other hand, counsel for private respondent submitted that since 2012, the private respondent was demanding the payment of gratuity from the petitioner, however, learned counsel is unable to point out from the record any such document that the private respondent ever demanded the gratuity from petitioner.
Justice Alok Aradhe held that from the perusal of the record, it is evident that last drawn salary of the private respondent was Rs. 8435/- and as per the formula prescribed under rules, the amount comes to Rs. 1,50,857, therefore, the amount of gratuity has rightly been calculated by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority under the Act. However, the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority have erred in awarding the interest on the amount of gratuity under sub section (3A) of section 7 under the Act in absence of any material on record that the petitioner has demanded gratuity from the year 2012.
Justice Aradhe quashed the impugned orders to the extent of grant of interest in favour of the private respondent on the amount of gratuity and held that the private respondent is entitled to the amount of gratuity awarded by the Controlling Authority minus the amount of interest.
He directed that the remaining amount due to the private respondent deposited before respondent no. 2 be released in favour of private respondent and rest of the amount be refunded to the petitioner. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
