Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kumari Jaiswal Wife Of Hari Narayan ... vs The Central Coal Fields Limited Through ... on 21 March, 2022
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1482 of 2014
Raj Kumari Jaiswal wife of Hari Narayan Jaiswal resident of Sinha
Market Gola Road, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. and District-Ramgarh
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Central Coal fields Limited through its Chairman cum
Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S.
Kotwali, District-Ranchi
2. The Director Personnel, Central Coal Fields Limited, Darbhanga
House, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi
3. The General Manager, Central Coal Fields Limited, Kuju Area, at
& P.O. Kuju, P.S. Mandu, District-Ramgarh
4. The Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Central Coal Fields Limited,
Kuju Area, at & P.O. Kuju, P.S. Mandu, District-Ramgarh
5. The Project Officer, Topa Project, Topa, Central Coal Fields
Limited, at and P.O. Topa, P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh
6. The Personnel Manager, Topa Project, Central Coal Fields
Limited, at and P.O. Topa, P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh
7. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Labour and
Employment, New Delhi
8. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Imlikothi,
Hazaribag, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar District-Hazaribag
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate
---
7/21.03.2022 Heard Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"For issuance of direction upon the respondents authority/employer to pay amount of Rs. 1,46,523/- (One lac forty-six thousand five hundred and twenty-three) and interest thereon from the due date to till the payment to the petitioner.
For issuance of direction upon the respondent No. 8/controlling authority to issue direction upon the respondent employer for payment of amount gratuity amounting Rs. 5,54,752/- (Five lacs fifty-four thousand seven hundred and fifty-two) and interest thereon from the due date to till the payment to the petitioner."
Submission on behalf of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as grievance of the petitioner regarding payment of leave encashment 2 and gratuity, for which the writ petition was filed, is concerned , the same has been redressed, but the surviving grievance is in connection with payment of interest on the gratuity amount as well as leave encashment.
5. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has retired on 31.07.2012 and had filed his claim on 20.08.2013 for leave encashment after vacating his quarter on 24.07.2013 and upon obtaining no dues certificate on 25.07.2013. He submits that thereafter the leave encashment amount was paid to him on 10.05.2014.
6. The learned counsel upon query of this court has fairly submitted that there is no statutory interest payable on leave encashment and he submits that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his legitimate dues on account of latches on the part of the respondents, therefore the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest on account of delay in disbursement of leave encashment amount .
7. So far as the gratuity amount is concerned, the learned counsel submits that it is for the employer to quantify the gratuity amount and pay the same with statutory interest and in the present case there has been delay in payment of gratuity amount which has been paid only vide Cheque dated 28.03.2014 pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central Hazaribag and controlling authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in case No. 36 (68)/2013. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled for the statutory interest in the delayed payment of the gratuity amount.
8. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by this court in L.P.A. No. 318 of 2019 (Prayag Narayan versus State of Jharkhand), paragraph 13.
Submission on behalf of the respondents.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand while opposing the prayer has submitted that order for payment of gratuity was passed by the appropriate authority during the pendency of this case and the said order has been complied with. He submits that order passed by the appropriate authority is not under challenge before this court and the order itself is an appealable order. The learned counsel submits that as the order for payment of gratuity 3 has been complied with, no further relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.
10. So far as interest on leave encashment is concerned, learned counsel has submitted that there has been no inordinate delay on the part of the respondents and in fact the petitioner has retained the quarter for about a year after his retirement, and no dues certificate was issued to him only on 25.07.2013 after he vacated the quarter. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by payment of interest on delayed payment in leave encashment amount.
Findings of this court
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this court it appears that the petitioner, before filing of this writ petition on 12.03.2014, had filed an application before respondent No. 8 for payment of gratuity amount which was registered as Case No. 36(68)/2013 and thereafter notices were also issued, but no final order was passed. This fact has been mentioned in para 12 of the writ petition.
12. It further appears from the counter affidavit that the appropriate authority had passed the order dated 21.01.2014 prior to filing of the writ petition. The order dated 21.01.2014 has been annexed along with the counter affidavit. It further appears that the order regarding payment of gratuity to the petitioner did not mention anything about interest on gratuity and the respondents were directed to make payment of Rs. 5,54,752/- within thirty days and subsequently the same was paid to the petitioner vide Cheque dated 28.03.2014.
13. Neither the petitioner had disclosed about passing of the aforesaid order dated 21.01.2014 before this court at the time of filing of the writ petition on 12.03.2014, nor any rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner explaining the reason for non- disclosure of order dated 21.01.2014.
14. It is also important to note that the order dated 21.01.2014 has been filed along with the counter affidavit, but the same is not under challenge in the present proceedings. Considering the fact that the appropriate authority has passed an order regarding payment of gratuity to the petitioner which is not under challenge in the present 4 proceedings, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for payment of interest on the gratuity amount in this writ proceedings, as gratuity was directed to be paid vide order dated 21.01.2014 passed in Case No. 36(68)/2012 by the competent authority. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the competent authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is an appealable order. Accordingly, this court is not inclined to grant any relief with regard to interest on gratuity as prayed for by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by this court in L.P.A. No. 318 of 2019 (Prayag Narayan versus State of Jharkhand) and referred to paragraph 13 to submit that it is the duty of the employer to act as per the statutory provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act wherein statutory duty has been cast upon the employer to pay interest on gratuity irrespective of any written application submitted by the employee who is eligible for payment of gratuity. This court is of the considered view that the aforesaid judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 318 of 2019 will not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case in view of the fact that the competent authority has already taken a decision with regard of payment of gratuity to the petitioner vide order dated 21.01.2014 prior to the filing of the writ petition and the said order has been annexed along with the counter affidavit and the said decision of the competent authority is not even under challenge before this court. As already observed, the said order is an appealable order and therefore no relief regarding payment of interest can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.
16. So far as leave encashment is concerned, admittedly there is no statutory interest payable on leave encashment. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had retired on 31.07.2012 and retained the quarter for almost a year and no dues certificate was obtained only on 25.07.2013 and thereafter the petitioner filed his claim for leave encashment on 20.08.2013 as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It further appears that leave encashment was paid on 10.05.2014. This court is of the considered view that the petitioner himself had made an application for leave encashment after expiry of more than a year and 5 thereafter the petitioner was paid the amount after around 9 months. This court is of the considered view that there has been no inordinate delay on the part of the respondents calling for any direction for payment of interest on the delayed payment of leave encashment. Accordingly, this court is not inclined to grant any interest on equitable grounds on leave encashment in exercise of power conferred under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this writ petition is dismissed.
18. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit