WP(C) No.2521/2025 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No.2521/2025 CM No.6693/2025 Caveat No.2463/2025 MANAGING DIRECTOR, JKRTC & ORS. ... PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA. Vs. MIR AFTAB AHMAD …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Mir Manzoor, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 28.10.2025 1) The petitioners, through the medium of this petition, have challenged order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act as also final dispatch notice dated 19.07.2025, whereby the petitioners have been asked to pay an amount of Rs.2,17,384/ on account of interest in favour of the respondent. 2) Issue notice to the respondent. 3) Mr. Mir Manzoor, Advocate, who is on caveat, waives notice on behalf of the respondent. Caveat shall stand discharged. 4) It appears that the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act has, on the basis of an application made by Sr. No.104 Suppl List WP(C) No.2521/2025 the respondent, directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,17,384/ as interest component on Rs.8,99,600/ with effect from 01.11.2022 to 31.03.2025 because the petitioners had failed to pay the amount of gratuity of Rs.8,99,600/ within the stipulated period of one month from the date of superannuation of the respondent from the services of the petitioner-Corporation. 5) Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioners in terms of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, which provides for an appeal before appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf against an order passed under sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the said Act. 6) In the present case, the impugned order has been passed by the Controlling Authority under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The said order is appealable in nature before the competent authority as provided under sub- section (7) of Section 7 of the Act. 7) It is trite law that the High Court generally does not entertain a writ petition if an alternative efficacious remedy is WP(C) No.2521/2025 available to a litigant against an order sought to be challenged by way of the writ petition. 8) As already stated, the petitioners have the alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Controlling Authority, as such, this Court refuses to entertain the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, held to be not maintainable. The petition is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy against the impugned order. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 28.10.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy”