University Of Delhi vs Shri Ramesh Chander Jha And Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5926 Del

$~8
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                 Judgment delivered on 18th November, 2014.
+                          W.P.(C) 4140/2014
       UNIVERSITY OF DELHI                               ..... Petitioner
                     Represented by:          Mr.G.K.Pathak, Adv.

                           versus

       SHRI RAMESH CHANDER JHAAND ORS. ..... Respondents
                    Represented by: Mr.Sudesh Kumar Goyal, Adv.
                                    for R-1.
                                    Mr.Akshay Makhija CGSC
                                    with Ms.Mahima Bahl, Adv.
                                    for R-5/UOI.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Controlling Authority/Respondent No.2 in ALC-I/36/221/2013 titled as Ramesh Chander Jha vs. The Registrar, University of Delhi and order dated 02.04.2014 passed in Appeal No. ND.36(69)/2013-P.A. titled as The Registrar, University of Delhi vs. Sh.Ramesh Chander Jha passed by respondent No.3 i.e. Appellate Authority.

2. The issue raised in this petition has already been decided by this Court in batch matters with lead petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 5138/2014 on 13.08.2014, whereby, held as under:-

16. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a complete code in itself. It is clear from the law and the judgments mentioned above that Provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 shall have overriding effect on all other provisions relating to Gratuity.

17. Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 describes as under:

"The provisions of this Act or any rule made there-under shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act."

18. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted that Delhi University Act, 1922 and State ordinances are statutory in nature, however, Section 14 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, has overriding effect over the other Acts, Statutes and Regulations.

19. Admittedly, the petitioner has taken up the case for exemption under Section 5, which is pending with the Central Government, however, not granted to the petitioner till date. Therefore, in my considered opinion, till this exemption is not granted, the petitioner is governed by the provisions of this Act.

20. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner granted gratuity to some of its employees, after the order was passed by the Controlling Authority. If the plea of the petitioner is accepted that the respondent no. 1 in all the petitions are not entitled for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, then it tantamount to discrimination and inequality before Law, which violates Article 14 of

the Constitution.

21. The Petitioner is an educational institution and employing more than 10 persons. The exemption under Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, has not yet been granted to it. The payment has already been made to some employees of the petitioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

22. In view of the facts recorded above and legal position, I do not find any discrepancy in the orders dated 30.09.2013 and 02.04.2014 passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively.

23. Accordingly, the instant petitions are dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.

3. Admittedly, the issue raised in the present petition is same as was in the petition noted in Para 2 above.

4. Accordingly, keeping in view the judgment rendered by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the present petition is dismissed.

5. Consequently, the interim order dated 09.07.2014, passed in C.M.No.8315/2014 stands vacated.

SURESH KAIT, J

NOVEMBER 18, 2014 mr/jg