Secretary Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Santosh Kumar Yadav and 3 Others

Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31026 of 2023 Petitioner :- Secretary Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Yadav And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Badan,Amit Kumar Mishra,Shivajee Srivastava Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition as the statutory remedy of filing an appeal is available under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2019) 10 SCC 516 submits that without recording any finding as to how ad hoc services of the petitioner can be taken into consideration as qualifying services for the payment of gratuity, the respondent authority has passed the order impugned. This Court feels that, on merits, the order can be challenged by way of statutory appeal as provided under the Act, 1972. On the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for three weeks' time to file appeal with requisite deposit as required under the relevant provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a direction is issued that in case any such appeal is filed within three weeks from today, same may be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of next six months ignoring the delay, if any. Needless to say that in case the statutory appeal is not filed within the time, prescribed above, along with requisite deposit, it shall be open for the authorities concerned to proceed in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 17.10.2023 DS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad