Delhi High Court
Karan Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 22 March, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 22, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2477/2017
KARAN SINGH & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.P. Sethi, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Dr. G.L. Bhatia, Advocate for
respondent No.1
Mr. Vedant Singh and Mr. Michelle Gomes,
Advocates for respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Grant of enhanced gratuity of `10 lacs is sought by petitioners
w.e.f. 1st January, 2006 while claiming that they are the retired employees
under the Central Dearness Allowance (hereinafter referred to CDA) Pay
Pattern. The grievance of petitioners' counsel is that the benefit of
Circular of 8th October, 2010 (Annexure P-1) granting enhancement of
maximum limit of gratuity from `3.5 lacs to `10 lacs to the retired
employees under the Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) Pay Pattern
has not been extended to the retired employees under the CDA Pay
Pattern.
2. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent-Cement Corporation of
India, the stand taken is that there are two set of pay scales i.e. IDA and
CDA, governing each type of executives/employees in public sector units
and Central Government has directed that enhanced gratuity is payable to
the retired employees under IDA Pattern of pay scale. In the counter-
affidavit filed by respondent-Cement Corporation of India, no reason is
given as to why the enhancement of maximum limit of gratuity payable to
IDA Pay Pattern employees cannot be extended to CDA Pay Pattern
employees.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent-
Cement Corporation of India follows the guidelines and directives issued
by the Central Government. No counter-affidavit has been filed by
respondent-Union of India. Petitioners' counsel draws the attention of this
Court to Representations (Annexures P-3/1 to 3/3) seeking maximum
limit of gratuity in terms of Circular of 8 th October, 2010 (Annexure P-1).
Admittedly, there is no response to the Representations (Annexures P-3/1
to 3/3) made by petitioners. However, no Representation has been made
to respondent-Union of India, who has to take the policy decision to
extend the benefits in terms of the Circular (Annexure P-1) to retired
employees of CDA Pay Pattern, like petitioners.
4. In view of aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with permission to
petitioners to make a concise and composite Representation to
respondent-Union of India to seek extension of benefits in terms of
Circular of 8th October, 2010 (Annexure P-1) to retired employees under
CDA Pay Pattern, like petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioners
submits that composite Representation would be made on behalf of
petitioners to respondent-Union of India within four weeks. Upon
receiving of said Representation, respondent-Union of India shall deal
with it by passing a speaking order within a period of six weeks and shall
convey the fate of Representation to petitioners/representationists within
two weeks thereafter. It is made clear that if the benefit in terms of
Circular of 8th October, 2010 (Annexure P-1) is not granted to
petitioners/representationists, then the reasons be spelt out in the speaking
order so passed.
5. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 22, 2018
s
