Madhya Pradesh High Court
Little World Higher Secondary ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 June, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WA No. 563 of 2023
(LITTLE WORLD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
WA/00564/2023, WA/00565/2023, WA/00566/2023, WA/00567/2023, WA/00568/2023,
WA/00569/2023, WA/00570/2023, WA/00571/2023, WA/00572/2023
Dated : 15-06-2023
Shri Kishore Shrivastava - Senior Advocate with Shri Sanjay Ram
Tamrakar - Advocate for appellant(s).
Shri B. D. Singh - Deputy Advocate General for respondent Nos.1 & 2
/State.
Shri Aditya Ahiwasi - Advocate for the Respondent No.3.
Aggrieved by the common order passed by learned Single Judge in
dismissing the various writ petitions, the petitioners therein have filed the instant
appeals. Since all the appeals arise out of the common order passed by the
learned Single Judge, they are being heard together.
Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant's counsel submits that one of the contentions urged by him before
the learned Single Judge was that an application seeking payment of gratuity by
the respondents was not made within prescribed period of limitation, and
therefore, no relief could have been granted to the respondents. That no
application at all was made seeking payment of gratuity. Notwithstanding the
same, relief has been granted to the respondents.
That the learned Single Judge has wrongly placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Viyut
Vitaran Company Ltd., Gwalior vs. D.D. Singh, (2014) 3 MPLJ 641 and came
to the conclusion that the provisions of the Gratuity Act override other
provisions/ enactment and accordingly, the Gratuity rules will have overriding
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 6/16/2023
3:47:39 PM
effect on Pension Rules. It is also noted that in terms of Rule 7(5) of the
Payment of Gratuity (Madhya Pradesh) Rules, 1973, no claim for gratuity shall
be invalid merely because of failure of claimant to present his application within
specified period. Therefore, what was contended by him is that there was no
application at all seeking payment of gratuity. The question of payment of
gratuity and the power of authority to condone the delay comes into play only
after an application for payment of gratuity is filed. In the absence of such an
application, the question of payment of gratuity and condonation of delay
would not arise at all. However, this aspect has not been considered by the
learned Single Judge while wrongly interpreting the aforesaid judgment.
T he same is disputed by the learned counsel who accepts notice on
behalf of respondent No.3. He has made submissions at length. He denies the
plea of the appellant on this point by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mohanlal S/o Nanno Mal vs. Appellate Authority
reported in 1995(3)LLJ 413.
However, on considering the contentions, we are of the view that the
matter requires to be reconsidered.
Hence, admit.
Stay of the orders vide Annexure P-3 to the writ petitions passed by the
respondent No.2 - Controlling Authority in the respective gratuity cases.
IA Nos.5047, 5050, 5051, 5052, 5054, 5053, 5055, 5056, 5057 and 5058
of 2023 filed in respective appeals for seeking stay are disposed off.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
vibha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 6/16/2023
3:47:39 PM
