RAM NARAYAN AGRAWAL Vs. CHHATTISGARH GRIH NIRMAN MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dtd. 31/5/2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4/Appellate Authority and for modifying the order dtd. 29/11/2013 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No.5/Controlling Authority-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that initially the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-department on 16/4/1976 and retired from the post of Senior Assistant on 30/10/2010 after serving for about 35 years. However, when his gratuity amount was not released, he made several requests and representations to the respondent authorities and when no action was taken thereon, ultimately he made an application to respondent No.5 for grant of gratuity with interest which was registered as Gratuity Case No.08/PGA/2013 and the same was allowed by order dtd. 29/11/2013 (Annexure P/2) with a direction to the respondent authorities to release the gratuity amount within a period of 30 days, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 10% p.a. However, no interest was allowed on the delayed payment of gratuity. Hence, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before respondent No.4 for grant of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. The Housing Board also preferred an appeal against the said order before respondent No.4. Both the appeals were dismissed by respondent No.4 by order dtd. 31/5/2014 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner's appeal was dismissed on the ground that he approached the Court for grant of gratuity with interest after 28 months of his retirement, without appreciating the fact that from the date of his retirement, the petitioner has been making several requests to the respondent authorities in this regard and when no action was taken thereon, ultimately he approached the Court for the same. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. While passing the impugned order dtd. 31/5/2014 respondent No.4 failed to appreciate the fact that from the date of his retirement, the petitioner had been making several requests and representations for release of gratuity and when no action was taken on the same, then only he approached the Court for redressal of his grievance. He submits that payment of gratuity is not a bounty but it is the hard earned money of the employee/petitioner. As per Sec. 7(2)(3) and 3(A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the employee is entitled to gratuity within 30 days, failing which the employee is entitled for interest and in spite of there being specific provision, the amount of gratuity has not been released within 30 days and the interest has also not been paid to the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the matters of Karnail Singh Vs. General Manager reported in (2017) 2 CLR 359; order dtd. 16/12/2015 of this Court in WPL No.115 of 2014 in the matter of Vandana Vidhut Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority and another; and order dtd. 8/5/2017 of this Court in WPL No.178 of 2016 in the matters of Prasen Singh Kshatriya Vs. Appellate Authority and others.