Gujarat High Court
Vadodara Municipal Corporation vs Chiragbhai Rajeshbhai Solanki, ... on 29 July, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/9710/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9710 of 2021
====================================================
VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Versus
CHIRAGBHAI RAJESHBHAI SOLANKI, LH OF RAJESHBHAI
MATHURBHAI SOLANKI
====================================================
Appearance:
MR NILESH A PANDYA(549) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. DHARMESH DEVNANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 29/07/2021
ORAL ORDER
1) The present petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following
relief;-
" (A) This Honourable Court may be pleased to quash
and set aside the judgment and order passed by the
controlling authority, Vadodara in Gratuity Case No. 170
of 2018 dated 2.9.2020 and also the judgment and order
passed by the appellate authority in appeal case no. 87 of
2020 decided on 19.4.2021"
2) Learned advocate Mr. Pandya appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that the father of the respondent No.1 passed away on
06.10.2016 before he was made permanent and hence, the order passed
by the Controlling Authority for payment of Rs.80,136/- to the
respondent No. 1 is illegal.
3) The Court has perused the order passed by the Controlling
Authority, the Controlling Authority, after examining the relevant facts
including the documents with regard to the service of the respondent
No.1, has passed the order directing the petitioner to pay an amount of
Rs.80,136/- to the respondent No.1, who is the son of the deceased
C/SCA/9710/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2021
employee. It is not in dispute that father of the respondent No.1 was
serving under the petitioner-Corporation and he was appointed in the year
October -1998 and, thereafter, he passed away on 06.10.2016, while he
was in service. The Controlling Authority has examined the service
record and it was found that the father of the respondent No.1 completed
19 years of service and his last monthly pay was of Rs.24,351/-. The
Controlling Authority, after placing reliance on the various judgments of
this Court, accordingly, calculated the service gratuity of the petitioner
and it was found that the father of the respondent No.1 has, in fact, had
rendered 18 years of service from 30.10.1998 to 06.10.2016 and
accordingly, calculated the gratuity amount of Rs.80,136/-, on the basis of
18 years of service and directed the petitioner-Corporation to pay the
same. The petitioner-Corporation has also filed an appeal against the
aforesaid order before the Appellate Authority being Appeal Case No. 87
of 2020. The Appellate Authority has also concluded that the father of the
respondent No.1 was appointed on a fixed term as "Safai Kamdar" on
30.10.1998 vide order No. 869/98-99, and thereafter, on 01.04.2006, he
was also appointed as a daily wager and he passed away on 06.10.2016.
The service record of the father of deceased employee was also
examined, thus, it is an established fact that the deceased father of the
respondent No. 1 was an employee of the petitioner-Corporation.
4) It is the case of the petitioner-Corporation that since the deceased
employee was not regularized and was not a regular employee, the
provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services Pension Rules, 2002 would not
applicable and the respondent No.1 would not be entitled to such gratuity.
5) Such contention is misconceived as the deceased employee would
be entitled for the gratuity under the payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972
for his entire service and it is not the case of the petitioner-Corporation
that the provision of the Payment of Gratuity Act are not applicable to it.
C/SCA/9710/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2021
6) The service of the deceased employee cannot be wiped out on the
ground that his service was not regularized under the provisions of the
Gujarat Civil Services Pension Rules, 2002.
7) The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nadiad
Nagarpalika v. Hasmukh Motilal Soni, reported in 2010 (2) GLH 250,
has held that the right to gratuity is a statutory right and the employees of
the Nagarpalika may be receiving the benefits under the Bombay Civil
Services Rules, or other service benefits, but the employees are entitled
for gratuity under the Act, in view of specific provisions made in Section
4(5) of the Act. Thus, this Court does not find any perversity, illegality or
infirmity in the orders of the Controlling Authority as well as the
Appellate Authority in directing the petitioner-Corporation to pay the
gratuity amount under the Act.
8) Hence, the writ petition fails and hence, the same is rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
VISHAL MISHRA
