DRIMES UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK v. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT CUM DLC,CUTTACK
WA/935/2025 · 2026-05-20
Chittaranjan Dash, Dixit K S
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6410 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6410 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No.935 of 2025
DRIMES University, Cuttack …. Appellant Mr. T. Mishra, Adv. Mr. S.S. Parida, Adv. -Versus- Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act Cum DLC, Cuttack and another …. Respondents Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No.
03.
ORDER 20.05.2026
This Intra-Court Appeal seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 11.04.2025, whereby Appellant’s Writ Petition was dismissed. After service of notice, learned AGA Mr. Behura represents the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, and the Respondent No.2 who is the answering party has entered appearance through his counsel.
2. Both learned advocates appearing for the Appellant-Institution and for the Respondent-employee have settled the dispute between them and a joint memo of settlement dated 20.05.2026 is filed, reporting settlement. The said memo reads as under:
JOINT MEMO OF SETTLEMENT
“That both the parties have arrived at a settlement. Pursuant to the settlement and without admission of any liability, the Appellant agrees to pay a sum of Rs.6 lacs to the Respondent No.2. A sum of Rs.5,02,203/- has been attached in the account held by the Appellant in Union Bank of India, Tangi p. 2 Branch under Annexure-7 of this present writ appeal. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct that the said amount be released to the Respondent No.2. The Appellant undertakes to pay the balance amount of Rs.97,797/- to the Respondent No.2 within a period of one month.”
3. A perusal of the Joint Memo of settlement, convinces the Court that there is no fraud, fabrication or the like and that the settlement is in the best interest of the parties. There is no legal or factual impediment for disposing off this Appeal in terms of settlement, making it a Rule of the Court, so that if its terms are not complied with, Contempt Petition can be moved.
With the above observations, the Appeal is disposed off modifying the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.
It is made clear that in terms of the subject settlement, if the amount is not paid within the period of one month, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 1% per mensem. This condition is added by this Court.
Now, no costs.
Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna S. Dixit) Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
Prasant
Designation: Personal Assistant