Gujarat High Court
Bhartiben Shivabhai Patel vs Appellate Authority Under The Payment ... on 22 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17473/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17473 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
BHARTIBEN SHIVABHAI PATEL
Versus
APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT &
ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR KARMANYASINGH V RORE(10920) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 22/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed in Gratuity Appeal No.183 of 2023 dated 18.07.2024 as well as the order passed by the learned Controlling Authority in Gratuity Application No.286 of 2023 dated 28.11.2023 by which the learned Controlling Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 22:46:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17473/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined Authority has rejected the claim made by the petitioner on the ground that no affidavit is filed by the petitioner supporting the contention made in the application.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhari for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Karmanyasingh Rore for the respondent No.3.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Chaudhari submits that the petitioner was working as a Peon with the respondent- Authority and on attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner retired from the service on 31.01.2021. It is the case of the petitioner before the learned Controlling Authority as submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Chaudhari that on completion of 240 days in every year of service the claim was made before the learned Controlling Authority by filing the form No."N" and "I". Learned advocate Mr.Chaudhari submits that though in support of the claim, the affidavit is also filed before the learned Controlling Authority as well as the copy of the passbook were also produced to substantiate the claim made before the learned Controlling Authority, by overlooking the said aspect the learned Controlling Authority has dismissed the application filed by the Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 22:46:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17473/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner fails to establish the case by filing the affidavit. Learned advocate Mr.Chaudhari submits that as learned Controlling Authority did not consider the claim on merits, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the Gratuity Application filed before the learned Controlling Authority is required to be remanded back for fresh decision.
4. As against the same the learned advocate Mr.Rore submits that though the learned Controlling Authority has rejected the application on the ground of non filing of affidavit however, before the learned Appellate Authority the petitioner fails to establish his continuous service of 240 days by producing cogent evidence. Learned advocate Mr.Rore submits that the pass book which is produced before the learned Controlling Authority does not suggest that continuity of service, therefore, no error is committed by the learned Controlling Authority as well as the learned Appellate Authority, in rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. Therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed and the impugned order deserves to be upheld.
Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 22:46:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17473/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respective parties and the reasons assigned by both the Authorities, it emerges that learned Controlling Authority in the order dated 28.11.2023 has observed that in support of the claim of last drawn salary of Rs.10,700/- as well as the retirement date on 31.01.2021 neither any documentary evidence, nor any affidavit is filed. Learned Appellate Authority in the order dated 18.07.2024 has observed that the petitioner fails to establish his claim by producing the cogent and convincing evidence, therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Controlling Authority.
6. This Court has referred the affidavit which is filed before the learned Controlling Authority which is a part of the memo of the present petition at page No.30. In the said affidavit, declaration is made by the petitioner that the petitioner was serving as a Peon since 01.10.1992 and has completed 28 years of service on 31.01.2021. It is also declared by the petitioner that the last drawn wages of the petitioner was Rs.10,700/- and has served 240 days in each calendar year. In support of the above affidavit, the pay slip is produced before the learned Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 22:46:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17473/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined Controlling Authority suggesting the last drawn basic pay of Rs.10,700/- of December, 2020. In addition to that a copy of the passbook is also produced to substantiate the claim, however, it emerges that without examining the above documents along with an affidavit, the learned Controlling Authority has passed an order rejecting the application by observing that neither any affidavit, nor any documentary evidence was produced.
7. This Court is of the view that learned Appellate Authority has also committed error in not examining the above documents and upholding the order passed by the learned Controlling Authority. In that background the application preferred before the learned Controlling Authority being No.286 of 2023 is required to be decided up-fresh by the learned Controlling Authority.
8. Resultantly, this petition is allowed.
9. The matter is remanded back to the learned Controlling Authority for deciding the Gratuity Application No.286 of 2023. The said exercise be completed within a period of five months from the date of receipt of this order.
10. It is clarified that learned Controlling Authority shall take decision after considering the contentions and the Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 22:46:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17473/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined submissions made by both the parties.
11. This Court has not opined anything on merits.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 22:46:51 IST 2025