Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Bhim Sain Sharma And Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 3629 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C.) No. 8547/2005

%                  Date of Decision: 08th September, 2009

# DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                                                    ..... PETITIONER
!                  Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Advocate

                                 VERSUS

$ SHRI BHIM SAIN SHARMA & ANOTHER
                                                       .....RESPONDENTS

^                  Through: NEMO.

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 only short question that arise for consideration in this writ

petition is whether the petitioner was justified in withholding Rs. 20,000/-

from the gratuity amount payable to the respondent on account of non-

vacation of official accommodation by him. The Controlling Authority

under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, has decided the said question

against the petitioner and has directed for release of the said amount of

Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent with interest @ 10% per annum

immediately.

2. The question that arise for consideration in the present writ petition

is squarely covered by an earlier decision of this Court in D.T.C. Vs. O.P.

Nandwani (W.P.(C.) No. 8293/2008 decided on 13.08.2009). In that

case it was held by this Court that the employer cannot withhold the

gratuity on account of non-vacation of official accommodation by the

employee. The earlier decision of this Court in the above-mentioned case

is based upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.T.C. Vs.

Dhanwant Rai & Others, LPAs No. 1086/2004 and 1118/2004 decided on

06.09.2007 and in that case also, it was held by the Division Bench that

the gratuity payable to an employee cannot be withheld by an employer

for non-vacation of official accommodation.

3. In that view of the matter, I do not find any perversity or illegality in

the impugned order 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. This writ petition,

therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.

September 08, 2009                                      S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'