Punjab-Haryana High Court
Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices vs Harkewal Singh And Ors on 6 August, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100717-DB
LPA-1720-2017 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1.LPA-1720-2017 (O&M)
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and
Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur
....Appellant
Versus
Harkewal Singh and others
..Respondents
2.LPA-1751-2017 (O&M) The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur ....Appellant Versus Tarsem Singh and others ..Respondents
3.LPA-1763-2017 (O&M) The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur ....Appellant Versus Lamber Ram and others ..Respondents
4.LPA-1774-2017 (O&M) The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur ....Appellant Versus Joginder Singh and others ..Respondents
5.LPA-1790-2017 (O&M) The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur ....Appellant Versus 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2024 21:11:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100717-DB LPA-1720-2017 (O&M) 2 Bidhi Chand and others ..Respondents
6.LPA-1923-2017 (O&M) The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur ....Appellant Versus Mohinder Singh and others ..Respondents
7.LPA-1956-2017 (O&M) The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur ....Appellant Versus M.K.Sidhu and others ..Respondents
8.LPA-1957-2017 (O&M) The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur ....Appellant Versus Balwinder Kumar and others ..Respondents
9.LPA-1958-2017 (O&M) The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur ....Appellant Versus Amar Chand and others ..Respondents
10.LPA-1998-2017 (O&M) The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur ....Appellant 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2024 21:11:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100717-DB LPA-1720-2017 (O&M) 3 Versus Harbhajan Singh and others ..Respondents
11.LPA-2065-2017 (O&M) The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur ....Appellant Versus Bakshi Ram and others ..Respondents
12.LPA-2066-2017 (O&M) The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur ....Appellant Versus Mohan Ram and others ..Respondents
13.LPA-978-2018(O&M) The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur ....Appellant Versus Ram Singh and others ..Respondents Date of decision: 06.08.2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present:- Mr. Piyush Khanna, Advocate for the appellant (in all the appeals) 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2024 21:11:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100717-DB LPA-1720-2017 (O&M) 4 SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral) CM-3711-LPA-2017 & CM-3712-LPA-2017 in LPA-1720-2017, CM- 3771-LPA-2017 & CM-3772-LPA-2017 in LPA-1751-2017, CM- 3791-LPA-2017 & CM-3792-LPA-2017 in LPA-1763-2017,CM-3811- LPA-2017 & CM-3812-LPA-2017 in LPA-1774-2017,CM-3839-LPA- 2017 & CM-3840-LPA-2017 in LPA-1790-2017,CM-4179-LPA-2017 & CM-4180-LPA-2017 in LPA-1923-2017,CM-4246-LPA-2017 & CM-4247-LPA-2017 in LPA-1958-2017,CM-4351-LPA-2017 & CM- 4352-LPA-2017 in LPA-1998-2017,CM-4519-LPA-2017 & CM-4520- LPA-2017 in LPA-2065-2017,CM-4522-LPA-2017 & CM-4523-LPA- 2017 in LPA-2066-2017 and CM-2600-LPA-2018 in LPA-978-2018 For the reasons stated in the applications, which are duly supported by affidavits, delay in filing as well as re-filing the appeals is condoned.
Applications stand allowed. CM-4860-LPA-2018 in LPA-1720-2017, CM-4851-LPA-2018 in LPA- 1751-2017, CM-4861-LPA-2018 in LPA-1763-2017,CM-4869-LPA- 2018 in LPA-1774-2017,CM-4858-LPA-2018 in LPA-1790-2017,CM- 4849-LPA-2018 in LPA-1923-2017, CM-4843-LPA-2018 in LPA- 1956-2017,CM-4850-LPA-2018 in LPA-1957-2017, CM-4859-LPA- 2018 in LPA-1958-2017, CM-5055-LPA-2018 in LPA-2065-2017,CM- 4842-LPA-2018 in LPA-2066-2017 and CM-2601-LPA-2018 in LPA- 978-2018 Allowed as prayed for. Order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge is taken on record. Main appeals
1. By this common order, a bunch of 13 Letters Patent Appeals (mentioned above) shall stand disposed of.
2. The appellant (employer) in the present intra court appeals assail the judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 28.03.2017 passed in a bunch of petitions including CWP-26514-2016 titled as 'Senior Superintendent of Post Offices vs. Harbhajan Singh and others', whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions of the 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2024 21:11:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100717-DB LPA-1720-2017 (O&M) 5 employer assailing the order of the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as '1972 Act') as well as the Appellate Authority whereby the gratuity due to the private respondents under the '1972 Act' was directed to be paid by the employer.
3. Today, when these cases have come up for hearing, learned counsel for the employer (appellant) has produced before us a decision of the Apex Court rendered in 'Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices vs. Gursewak Singh and others' 2019(15) SCC 292, wherein it has been observed as under:-
"9.4. Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act excludes persons who hold a post with the Central or State Government and a are governed by any other Act or rules providing for payment of gratuity.
Gramin Dak Sewaks are engaged as Extra Departmental Agents, a post governed by the 2011 Rules. Superintendent of Post Officers v. PK Rajamma; (1977) 3 SCC 94 See also Union of India v. Kameshwar Prasad; (1997) 11 SCC 650 These Rules have a separate provision for payment of Gratuity to the Extra Departmental Agents. A Gramin Dak Sewak is not an "employee" under the 1972 Act. The first issue is answered accordingly."
4. From the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, it is obvious that it has been categorically held that Gramin Dak Sewak is not an employee as defined under Section 2 (e) of the '1972 Act' and therefore, the Gramin Dak Sewaks (private respondents) are not entitled to gratuity under the '1972 Act'. However, what is culled out from the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices's case (supra) is that the Gramin Dak Sewaks may not be entitled to gratuity under the '1972 Act' but would be entitled to gratuity 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2024 21:11:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100717-DB LPA-1720-2017 (O&M) 6 as per the service rules and regulations as applicable to them i.e Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.
5. In view of the above, when the law has been settled by the Apex Court, this Court disposes of all the present Letters Patent Appeals with the following directions:-
i) the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.03.2017 and the orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as well as the Appellate Authority are set aside.
ii) The respondents (employees) would, however, be entitled to the benefit of gratuity in terms of the provisions of the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, which if not released to the respondent employees be released with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date the gratuity became due.
iii) No costs.
(SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE 06.08.2024 rekha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2024 21:11:32 :::