Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Shri Amar Singh
2009 Latest Caselaw 2984 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No. 10618/2009

%                        Date of Decision: 03rd August, 2009


# MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI                ..... PETITIONER
!             Through: Mr. Nalin Tripathi, Addl. Standing Counsel

                                 VERSUS

$ SHRI AMAR SINGH                                     .....RESPONDENT

^             Through: None

CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?NO

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) C.M. No. 9471/2009 (for exemption) in W.P.(C.) No. 10618/2009

Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C.) No. 10618/2009 and C.M. No. 9470/2009 (for stay)

The question raised for determination in this writ petition is covered

by an earlier judgment of this Court dated 06.07.2009 in W.P.(C) No.

9052/2009 titled Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Babu Lal wherein it

was held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to those

employees who have retired from the service of the MCD prior to the

date of exemption under Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

having been granted by the Central Government from applicability of this

Act to the MCD vide Notification dated 22.07.2005 w.e.f. 06.08.2005.

2 This writ petition filed by the MCD (the petitioner herein) is directed

against an order dated 26.03.2009 passed by the appellate authority

confirming the order dated 19.09.2008 of the controlling authority under

the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 directing the petitioner to pay an

amount of Rs.19,950/- with 10% simple interest being the amount of

balance gratuity admissible to the respondent who admittedly had retired

on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.12.2004 prior to the date

when MCD was exempted from the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity

Act, 1972.

3 In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned

order of the appellate authority or that of the controlling authority that

may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary

discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. This writ petition is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, dismissed

in limine.

4. Stay application is also dismissed.

August 03, 2009                                        S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'