Judgment:
1 Ram Dayal.versus Appellate Authority and another W.P.(s)No.12654/2004 09/08/2012 Shri Ashok Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy.
Government Advocate for the State.
Challenging an order Annexure-P2 dated 11.2.2004 passed by the appellate authority exercising jurisdiction under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and denying interest on the gratuity payable to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.
Having heard Shri Ashok Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the reasons given by the appellate authority for denying interest to the petitioner, which was originally granted by the controlling authority, it is seen that before the controlling authority, no evidence was recorded and no records were called for and in the absence of any reply by the Government, the order was passed by the controlling authority.
On an appeal being filed by the State Government, the appellate authority found that the controlling authority without conducting any enquiry into the matter and without following the due process of hearing, ordered for payment of gratuity along with interest and, therefore, it was found to be a fit case where the matter should be remanded back.
However, as the employee had retired and gratuity has to be paid to him, learned appellate authority has passed the order for payment of gratuity to the petitioner instead of remanding the matter back 2 Ram Dayal.versus Appellate Authority and another for fresh enquiry and while doing so, interest has been denied.
The State Government has accepted the order of the appellate authority and has paid the gratuity to the petitioner, except interest.
The discretion exercised by the appellate authority has been challenged before this Court.
The reasons given by the appellate authority for denying interest to the petitioner and justification for the same seems to be reasonable and the same does not call for any interference in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, finding no grounds to interfere into the matter, the petition is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd