Govinda Raj S/O Puttaswamy vs The Divisional Controller K S R T C on 23 July, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Govinda Raj S/O Puttaswamy vs The Divisional Controller K S R T C on 23 July, 2009

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

Bx} TEE HIGH COURT OF 1<ARNA'rAI<A AT BANGA1,<;:iiz'1é 5   ~ ..

natedmisme 23rd day army, 2039 

Before   

mg II£31'\'"BLE MR JUSTICE I1l2fI.}EfV..é.';'_ﬁ;' 9' c;  ., , .  j

may Pairion 13;s.an(2aeé '-aim'   

Govinda Raj Sfo Puriaswmny 

47 yrs, KSRTC I:-xiver '   ;
R,!o#223,HStage,Kuvempt1Nag'2x_7' , i _  

Mysore 23 V     " "Peiitioner

(By S:-1K Srinivas,       
Divisional   _ 

KSRTC,  I3ivisi<2r{'---.AA "   

Mysore 7 «. --V V  "

(By 3*'     

Reapondsnt

  " «. .T'i;is E%'ii%r:t:V%'Pa,;:eien is filed under m-:.22'6z22? of the Constitaiien
praying' mjqaasiz   dated 5.5.2905 -- annexure E and to mﬁntd the

';3s;iti::t§'::1_st3 fix;-v"etc.

 'Pétitian ceming an for hearing ﬁtis day, tin: Court made the

 *~ V 1

ORDER

Petitkmer is challenging the decision of the managememt in géiﬁﬂmldmg the gatuity amount and has sought fer qtmhing the levying cf Ag-Iv' mtemst ofRs.82,230f-- on the gatuity amount and, to direct mfund of tha said amount and further. direct {he KSRTC to pay full pay scale every Petitioner served as a Brivcr in the KSRTC. ' departsnenial inquiry held for his alieged miscor_1duc%:_ 'A u March 1994, he was dismissed ﬁom service. the 'ragga workman, the Labour couri ordered ﬁ:«I' 11-ﬁgsmfhlnéﬁt However in the meanwhile, imtnediateiy §iis1pissa;L' ﬁéiﬂxdrawn the gamity amount. Sinca there «an ;;t ﬁe time of reporting he has depesitgd the fine time deposit The peﬁtiangi the gratuity amount while seniingkhé 4.b¢n.st§:;~5§1as"'re§gsm§¢en: have withheld an amount of Rs.82,,?;8(}f-_statiz1g"'£hat aimse ii*;e gEiati1ity amount was withdrawn by the 2994 atuflieié.-::a'of'disn1is»sal and thereafter. during 2065 he fiépbsiiiéd thg 'a;iim1;rni,::.ir:terest has been charged at Rs.82,286:'- from 1994 to V 2005. '-

K x V' " lb; gxfévance ef the gyetititmez' is Eta! there is nu enabling provisien to interest fmm 1994 to 2005. The management has wmngly Qsfiﬁxheid part of the gatxlrity axnmmt stating that the petitiener 'w liabie ta pay L "1 _ 3 Ehfcnest on tha gatuity amount.

According to the nespmtdent, petitioner has to pay the rate of12'% and that me amount withlxeld by the mmagggtiaﬁt is:

proper and the petitioner has no claim on that t annexune R3 and R2, ieamed counsei s1;bmim¥. d.A.t11e deduxgted 'V towards interest is pcrrnissihie and pctition--viu§iiable ta} S In the Sight ofthe f11e g)ov:in1V:forVmy consideraticn is whether the mmaganmggt an amount ef Rs.82,280,f- statingim jmmg: _t4é5:1{a1'ds«'gifattiit3%§i§f1ounL Resoiﬁiion 3? 1."? the r'~espondent's counsel provides for imposition of i1:tér§stVwhéi:ei:.{ anﬂipﬁses the Unit Heads to ﬁx the number Qf monﬂgijg 'iixstaﬂmenis-A excﬁeding 30 or actuai 121% out service: or the requested by the applicant whichever is less and to .AiT';:vs:&J2ment with interest at 14% 13.3. from the date ef ' Ureirxstatefnent Rate of the last instaiment' Reiying on axis clause, _. i r:ﬁpéer;de:nt's..c9ﬁ3lse! argued that the interest has to be paid. V. flu the case an hand, it is net én dispute mat immadiately after the of rcinstatemenz, the warkman has deposited Rs.55,532f~ inwards the entire amount af"m!1::ity which he had earlier withdrawn. Only in me event 'W he sought for any installment to be paid and if he was unable Ia pa},"'ﬂie gatuity amount fm czontinuation of the graiuity, men only .. have been added for such installment proportionally till the V' recovered. But, since already at the inception i:.¢;; petitioner has deposited the entire amount 11$ withdrawn at the time of dismissal, queéiiiiizfif of no! arise. In the circumstances, swiﬁiout V_é'2'41i;.?i:)i's»i:£}'o3$!'(_'}u11 of authority has wiihheid the 'Tim: apart, since the Warkmazx has retired dming_ 2G0? gnd--2io}v lgré said amount is lying with the it was more advantageous to thé ii1fe:1'é:stViaci§rued on the said amount woulé enure 'ocnéﬁ%~.3f In i;l§.af\si§w t'z:eV_Vriiei1t¢r,v'it is ordered the management shali release gm i>f1'uRs,§2;.2B9f-- iomihe petitioner within a month. Petition is " ii ' ' i Sd/-i__ Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court