Devesh P. Triwedi v. Uco Bank

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4053 of 2021 Devesh P. Triwedi S/o Late Pragji J. Trivedi, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Qrt. No. 13/ B, Street 71, Sector 6, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. UCO Bank Through The General Manager, Personnel Services Department, UCO Bank, Head Office, 3 And 4 DD Block, Sector 1, Salt Lake, Kolkata (W.B.) Pin 700064.

2. The Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Chhattisgarh Eye Hospital Campus, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Pension Bada Branch, Campus Of Board Of Secondary Education Campus, Pension Bada, Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492001.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastav Advocate For Respondents :

Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 06.08.2021

1. The grievance of petitioner in the present writ petition seems to be the non-granting of Gratuity to the petitioner in terms of the regulations governing the service conditions of petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, he has been inflicted with an order of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 20.01.2010. Though the petitioner has been granted all other dues on his being compulsory retired, he has not been granted Gratuity in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

3. Considering the fact that the entitlement of petitioner is one which originates under the principle Act of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the rules framed therein, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy under the said Act of 1972 by approaching before the concerned Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

4. In view of the same, reserving the right of petitioner to approach the concerned Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for ventilating his grievance so far as his unpaid gratuity amount is concerned, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of. In the event of the petitioner approaching the Controlling Authority, the Authority concerned is expected to take a prompt decision in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1972 at the earliest.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai