R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Surveyor in the DVC, Bermo Mines on 20.3.1956 and was promoted to the post of Survey Officer with effect from 24.2.1975 and was retired on superannuation from service of DVC (Mines) on 28.2.1985. While the petitioner was still in service, the respondent -employer circulated a notification among his employees calling upon the employees Of the Corporation who have completed 20 years of service to exercise option in writing either to continue to subscribe to contributory provident fund or to the employees provident fund or to opt for pension -cum -gratuity scheme. Thereupon, the petitioner opted for pension -cum -gratuity scheme but the authority did not communicate about the outcome of that option though the petitioner had expressed his readiness to refund the Corporation's contribution to provident fund. Meanwhile, the petitioner retired on superannuation but was not given benefit under the aforesaid scheme, namely, pension -cum -gratuity scheme, though in similar situation one Mr. B.N. Biswas was given benefit under that scheme. Subsequently, the petitioner was given gratuity amount of Rs. 19,176/ - which was far below than the amount of Rs. 44,480/ - which the petitioner was entitled to get and therefore, the petitioner made a representation before the Management but no order was passed and, therefore, the petitioner filed an application under the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act before the competent authority claiming a sum of Rs. 25,204/ - as Rs. 19,176/ - had already been paid whereas the petitioner was entitled to get Rs. 44,480/ - and the controlling authority vide its order dated 28.3.1999 disposed of the application rejecting the application of the petitioner but held that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 22,126.15 and, therefore, the authority was asked to make payment of Rs. 2950.15.
(2.) BEING aggrieved with that order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, vide P.G. Appeal No. 15 of 1999 which was also dismissed on 8.11.2000 with a modification whereby respondent -management was directed to make payment of interest @10% on Rs. 19,176/ - for the period from 1.4.1985 to 25.4.1987 and also on Rs. 2950.15 for the period from 6.1.1998 to 24.9.1999. Being aggrieved with the order of the competent authority as also the appellant authority, the petitioner has preferred this application for quashing both the orders.
(3.) IT is pertinent to note here that in spite of notice served upon the petitioner, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent and as such no counter affidavit has been filed.;