Delhi Jal Board vs Shri Jai Prakash
2009 Latest Caselaw 3936 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P.(C.) No. 11935/2009

%                    Date of Decision: 24th September, 2009

# DELHI JAL BOARD
                                                            ..... PETITIONER
!                    Through:   Mr. Suresh Tripathy, Advocate

                                   VERSUS

$ SHRI JAI PRAKASH
                                                              .....RESPONDENT

^                    Through:   Nemo.

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)

Delhi Jal Board (the petitioner herein), in this writ petition, seeks to

challenge an order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the controlling authority

under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 directing it to pay Rs.47,299/-

with interest @ 10% per annum to the respondent on account of

difference of gratuity admissible to him under the Payment of Gratuity

Act.

2      Heard on admission.

3      The respondent had retired from the service of the petitioner on

30.04.2003. After his retirement, he was paid gratuity under the CCS

(Pension) Rules. The respondent filed an application before the

Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for

payment of difference of gratuity admissible to him under the Payment of

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

(Pension) Rules. The claim made by the respondent was contested before

the controlling authority on the ground that the petitioner is exempted

from the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 vide Notification

dated 12.06.2003. The controlling authority did not agree with the plea of

the petitioner and directed it to pay difference of gratuity admissible to

the respondent under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It will be

significant to mention that the respondent on the date of his retirement

on 30.04.2003 was governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity

Act, 1972 because the petitioner was granted exemption under Section 5

of the said Act w.e.f. 12.06.2003. The petitioner cannot take advantage

of the prospective exemption granted to it w.e.f. 12.06.2003. Therefore I

do not find any perversity in the impugned order directing the petitioner

to pay difference of gratuity to the respondent.

3 A similar challenge made by the petitioner in another writ petition

being W.P.(C) No.17888/2005 and other connected matters has already

been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 21.08.2007. The

appeal against the said judgment being LPA No. 780/2008 filed by the

petitioner has also been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court

vide judgment and order dated 13.01.2009.

4 In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any perversity

or illegality in the impugned order that may call for an interference by

this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution. This writ petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed in

limine.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2009                             S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'