1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 610 OF 2010 Akola Taluq Sahakari Shetki -: versus :- Additional Commissioner and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 13, 2010. Authorities below have concurrently directed petitioner/ employer to release amount of gratuity payable to respondent no.3 on account of his superannuation. I have heard Shri R.D. Bhuibar, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mrs. P.M. Chandekar, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Contention of Shri Bhuibar, learned counsel is, respondent no.3 was found guilty of serious misconduct after departmental enquiry and hence the management committee on 27.07.2002 resolved to dismiss him. As per Bye law no.58 of the society previous approval of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies was necessary and hence on 04.09.2002 that proposal was forwarded to that authority. The proposal remained pending with that authority till 02.09.2009 and on that date the approval to dismiss respondent no.3 from service came to be granted. In the meanwhile said employee had reached the age of superannuation and therefore he was superannuated. After his superannuation, gratuity could not be released as the proceedings seeking approval to his dismissal were 2 pending. Respondent no.3 therefore approached the authorities and ignoring all these facts, the Authorities have directed petitioners to pay the amount of gratuity. The order of controlling authority is dated 10.02.2009, while the Appellate judgment is dated 03.12.2009. Mrs. Chandekar, learned counsel for respondent no.3 on the other hand contends that as the employee had superannuated on 07.08.2004 the forfeiture of gratuity could not have been ordered and the approval received on 02.09.2009 is meaningless. Learned A.G.P. states that as the matter is between private parties, it is not necessary for respondent nos. 1 and 2 to take any stand in this respect. However, he states that as it was superannuation the gratuity amount could not have been withheld. The facts above clearly show that the employee retired on superannuation on 09.09.2004 on reaching the age of 58 years and accordingly the order was passed to that effect on 07.08.2004. Thus after 09.09.2004, there was no employer – employee relationship between the parties and hence there could not have been any order of dismissal after that date. Petitioner lacked jurisdiction to pass an order till 02.09.2009 in view of their bye law no.58. In this situation, it is apparent that there could not have been forfeiture of amount of gratuity payable to respondent no.3. No case is made out warranting interference in concurrent orders. Writ Petition is thus dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.