Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Shri Balraj Singh
2009 Latest Caselaw 4758 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             W.P.(C) No. 9482/2009 & CM No.7359/2009

%               Date of Decision: 20th NOVEMBER, 2009


# MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI              ..... PETITIONER
!             Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate.

                                 VERSUS

$ SHRI BALRAJ 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) 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 08.01.2008 passed by the appellate authority

confirming the order dated 25.10.2006 of the controlling authority under

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

amount of Rs.30,316/- 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 30.04.2001 much prior to the

date when MCD was granted exemption from the provisions of the

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

3 In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any infirmity in

the impugned award 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

dismissed in limine. Stay application is also dismissed.

NOVEMBER 20, 2009                                S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR'