SURESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3.

(2.) Present petition has been filed challenging the order dtd. 24/8/2016 whereby the petitioner has been denied the payment of gratuity on account of a decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'MACT') fixing the joint liability of the petitioner to pay the amount as awarded against the claim by the said MACT.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was employed as a driver with the respondent - university and retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 28/4/2014. It is on record that during the services rendered by the petitioner, no inquiry was pending or contemplated against the petitioner and even after retirement, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. It is on record that while the petitioner was in employment of the respondent as a driver; he was driving a Jeep which met with an accident on 8/11/2011 resulting in death of two persons. The heirs of the said two persons preferred a claim petition under provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act which was decided on 15/9/2014 holding the petitioner as well as the owner of the vehicle jointly responsible and consequently liable for payment of compensation. Respondent No.2 preferred an appeal against the said order, however, the appeal was dismissed in default as is clear from the perusal of the order dtd. 29/4/2022 passed in FAFO No.2322 of 2018. The petitioner was not being paid the amount of gratuity, as such, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3832 (SS) of 2016 which was disposed off on 26/2/2016 directing the respondents to pass a reasoned order in respect of claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity. In pursuance to the said direction, the order impugned dtd. 24/8/2016 has been passed.