Delhi High Court
Public Works Department vs Ram Pal & Anr. on 31 May, 2022
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8701/2022
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Avni Singh, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
versus
RAM PAL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Richa Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Ajay Jain with Ms. Vishakha
Singh, Ms. Cherry Agarwal and
Mr. Keshav Ahuja, Advocates for
respondent No.2.
% Date of Decision: 31st May, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL.26226/2022 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 8701/2022& CM APPL.26227/2022 (stay)
1. Present petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ(s) or order(s) to quash the impugned order dated
06.12.2021, passed by the respondent No.2 herein allowing the claim
application submitted by respondent No.1 and directing the petitioner herein
to grant 100% gratuity for services rendered on the Muster-roll alongwith
interest at 10% per annum in direct contravention of the rules on the subject.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:01.06.2022
14:51:54
2. At the outset, an objection has been taken by learned counsel for the
respondent, who appears on advance notice that the petitioner should first
have filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 7(7) of
the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It has been stated that earlier also in
similar matters the petitions filed were dismissed bearing WP(C) 4912/2022
titled Public Works Department vs. Nanji And Anr., WP(C) 5971/2022
titled The Directorate General of Works, CPWD vs. Gajraj Singh & Ors.,
WP(C) 5998/2022 titled The Directorate General of Works, CPWD vs.
Santokh Singh & Ors, WP(C) 6001/2022 titled The Directorate General of
Works, CPWD vs. Prakash Chand & Ors, WP(C) 6013/2022 titled The
Directorate General of Works, CPWD vs. Shashi Devi & Ors, WP(C)
6015/2022 titled The Directorate General of Works, CPWD vs. Ram Kishan
& Ors. and WP(C) 6028/2022 titled The Directorate General of Works,
CPWD vs. Babu Lal & Ors.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the
decision of this Court in WP(C) 4900/2022 titled Public Work Department
vs. Sh. Budhi Ram & Anr., the petition is liable to be relegated to the
Appellate Court for filing of an appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for parity of reasons
similar directions regarding condonation of delay may also be passed to
enable the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel
for the respondent has agreed to the submissions provided that appropriate
costs may be imposed upon the petitioner.
5. Limitation for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority is 60
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:01.06.2022
14:51:54
days and the Appellate Authority can condone the delay for further 60 days.
In the present case, the order is dated 06.12.2021, so there is a delay of little
more than 3 months in filing of the petition. Taking into account the totality
of the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by the
Supreme Court condoning the delay during the COVID period, the delay is
condoned. Petitioner may file an appeal within four weeks. If such an
appeal is filed within four weeks, the Appellate Authority shall entertain and
decide the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the appeal is
not filed within four weeks i.e. by 30th June, the same shall not be
entertained and the respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to approach the
Tehsildar for continuance of recovery proceedings.
6. Till such time the appeal is heard, the recovery proceedings shall
remain stayed. Considering the fact that the challenge in this petition is to an
order passed in favour of the respondent No.1/workman and there being a
delay of taking the appropriate proceedings, this Court deem it appropriate
to dispose of this petition with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the
respondent No.1/workman on the first date of hearing before the Appellate
Court. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 vehemently opposes the
imposition of penalty of Rs.25,000/-. However, this Court considers that in
totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and fair to impose
the costs.
7. In view of the above, the present petition along with pending
application stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
May 31, 2022/st
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:01.06.2022
14:51:54
