Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 53271 (AP)

Executive Director v. Controlling Authority under the Payment Gratuity Act 1972

WP/10062/2016 · 2025-08-06

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010306892016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10062 OF 2016 Between: 1. Executive Director, BHEL - Heavy Plates & Vessels Plant (Formerly BHPV) Visakhapatnam ...Petitioner AND 1. Controlling Authority under the Payment Gratuity Act 1972, & Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Visakhapatnam 2. Sri N Rajulu, D.No.10-50-1/1, Dr Lazarus Compound Maharanipeta, Visakhaptnam-530002 ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or a direction or a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari after calling for records from the 1st Respondent and quash the order in Gratuity Application No. 7 of 2014 dated 10-2-2016 and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: S RAVINDRANATH Counsel for the Respondents: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 2 Counsel for the Respondents: A KRANTI KUMAR REDDY The Court made the following order: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.10062 of 2016 ORDER: When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri K.N.P.Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for BHEL Heavy Plates Vessels Plant, formerly BHPV, Visakhapatnam, submits that in view of subsequent events taken place in the lis, as the petitioner already paid requisite gratuity amount in favour of second respondent/claimant long back, he prays to permit him to withdraw the writ petition. To substantiate his contention, he also filed a memo vide USR No.86328 of 2015 dated 07.08.2025. 2. Recording the contents in the memo filed by the petitioner’s counsel, as no further orders are required, permission is accorded and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 07.08.2025 Rns 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.10062 of 2016 Date: 07.08.2025 Rns