Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Shri Babu Lal
2009 Latest Caselaw 2494 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No. 9052/2009 & CM No. 6597/2009

%                        Date of Decision: 06 July, 2009


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

                                 VERSUS

$ SHRI BABU LAL                                       .....RESPONDENT

^             Through: None

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

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The short question that arises for determination in this writ petition

is whether the respondent workman who retired from service of MCD

(petitioner herein) from the post of Mali in Horticulture Department w.e.f.

31.05.2004 was entitled to get his gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity

Act, 1972 or under the CCS (Pension) Rules.

2. The respondent on his superannuation was paid gratuity of

Rs.1,08,240/- under the CCS (Pension) Rules. He made a claim before

the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for

payment of difference of the amount due to him under the Payment of

Gratuity Act, 1972 and what has already been paid to him under the CCS

(Pension) Rules, 1972.

3. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

vide its order dated 13.03.2007 awarded an amount of Rs.39,360/- in

favour of the respondent being the difference of the amount payable to

him under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and that stood already paid

to him under the CCS (Pension) Rules. Aggrieved by the said order

of the Controlling Authority, the petitioner MCD filed an appeal before

the Appellate Authority who vide its order dated 29.09.2008 at page 24

of the Paper Book confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority and

directed payment of difference of Rs.39,360/- to the respondent

workman.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority

dated 29.09.2008 and has filed the present writ petition for setting aside

of the above referred orders of the Controlling Authority and that of the

Appellate Authority and to hold that the petitioner Corporation is not

liable for payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to

the respondent workman.

5. I have heard Mr. Nalin Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner, who has argued that since a Special Leave Petition

arising out of a Division Bench judgment of this Court on the same issue

is pending before the Supreme Court, the hearing on this petition may be

adjourned till the Special Leave Petition is decided by the Supreme court.

I do not find any substance in the argument of the counsel for the

petitioner.

6. Mr. Tripathi submits during hearing that the Division Bench of this

Court has held against the petitioner Corporation in regard to its liability

for payment of gratuity to its employees who have retired prior to

22.07.2005 when it was exempted by the Central Government from the

purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. In the present case, the

respondent workman admittedly retired on 31.05.2004 prior to the date

when the petitioner Corporation was exempted from applicability of the

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The exemption was granted on

22.07.2005. Hence, the date on which the respondent workman has

superannuated, he was entitled to get his gratuity as per the provisions

contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is not disputed by Mr.

Tripathi, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that in case the

respondent was entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act,

1972, then he was entitled to get the difference awarded to him by the

impugned orders. In the opinion of this Court, the respondent workman

was certainly entitled to get his gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity

Act, 1972 on the date he has superannuated and, therefore, I do not find

any infirmity in the impugned orders assailed in this writ petition.

7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition which

fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

8. Since the main writ petition has been dismissed, the application for

stay being CM No. 6597/2009 is rendered infructuous.

JULY 06, 2009                                    S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'ma'