WRIT PETITION 41 of 2011 on 31 January 1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHIW. P. (S) No. 41 of 2011

...

Dr. Janki Sinha

……Petitioner

-V e r s u s-

Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribabh and Ors.......Respondents …

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

…

For the Petitioner: - Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Adv.For the Respondents: - Mr. S. Choudhary, Adv.....

15/17.07.2014

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner, after his retirement on 31.01.1998 from the post of University Professor, had earlier moved before this Court in W. P.(S) No. 383 of 2009 seeking payment of retiral benefits and benefits of promotion given on the post of Professor after her retirement with retrospective effect. The respondent-State were directed to release the necessary grant to the respondent-University and concerned respondents were directed to make payment of the undisputed amount with statutory interest to the petitioner within a stipulated time.

As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, though rest of post retiral dues were paid, but gratuity amount has not been paid for which this writ petition has been filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, balance gratuity amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid by the University through letter dated 08.08.2012. The petitioner, however, is seeking statutory interest on the said amount of gratuity.

Learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that on the amount on which statutory interest is provided, the same have already been paid. However, no statutory interest on gratuity is payable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has relied upon the provision of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 seeking interest over the amount of gratuity paid after some delay.

Provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, however, do not appear to be applicable for the petitioner, who had retired as Professor of the University, in view of the provision contained in Section 2(a) i.e. in relation to appropriate Government, Section 2(e) in relation to employee and Section 2(f) in relation to the employer. Definition of employee at 2(e)

squarely indicates that employee would mean the person, who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies. It, therefore, appears that the case of the petitioner does not come within the definition of an employee under the said Act.

The petitioner has, however, referred the judgment dated 02.11.2012 passed in the case of Dr. Jitendra Kumar Sinha Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W. P.(S) No. 6398 of 2012 and submitted that the respondents were directed to release the arrears of gratuity with statutory interest to the said petitioner. However, in the said judgment, it appears that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 were not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court.

Be that as it may, if the petitioner is able to show any provision under any statue or act which governed the service conditions of the petitioner under the University, he may approach the respondent-University for release of the statutory interest upon delay in payment of gratuity amount.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)