Punjab-Haryana High Court
Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices vs Harkewal Singh And Ors on 6 August, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100717-DB
LPA-1720-2017 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1.LPA-1720-2017 (O&M)
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and
Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur
....Appellant
Versus
Harkewal Singh and others
..Respondents
2.LPA-1751-2017 (O&M)
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and
Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur
....Appellant
Versus
Tarsem Singh and others
..Respondents
3.LPA-1763-2017 (O&M)
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and
Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur
....Appellant
Versus
Lamber Ram and others
..Respondents
4.LPA-1774-2017 (O&M)
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and
Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur
....Appellant
Versus
Joginder Singh and others
..Respondents
5.LPA-1790-2017 (O&M)
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and
Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur
....Appellant
Versus
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100717-DB
Bidhi Chand and others
..Respondents
6.LPA-1923-2017 (O&M)
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and
Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur
....Appellant
Versus
Mohinder Singh and others
..Respondents
7.LPA-1956-2017 (O&M)
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and
Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur
....Appellant
Versus
M.K.Sidhu and others
..Respondents
8.LPA-1957-2017 (O&M)
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and
Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur
....Appellant
Versus
Balwinder Kumar and others
..Respondents
9.LPA-1958-2017 (O&M)
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and
Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur
....Appellant
Versus
Amar Chand and others
..Respondents
10.LPA-1998-2017 (O&M)
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and
Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur
....Appellant
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100717-DB
Versus
Harbhajan Singh and others
..Respondents
11.LPA-2065-2017 (O&M)
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and
Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur
....Appellant
Versus
Bakshi Ram and others
..Respondents
12.LPA-2066-2017 (O&M)
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and
Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur
....Appellant
Versus
Mohan Ram and others
..Respondents
13.LPA-978-2018(O&M)
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts and
Telegraphs, Hoshiarpur
....Appellant
Versus
Ram Singh and others
..Respondents
Date of decision: 06.08.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. Piyush Khanna, Advocate for the appellant
(in all the appeals)
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100717-DB
SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
CM-3711-LPA-2017 & CM-3712-LPA-2017 in LPA-1720-2017, CM-
3771-LPA-2017 & CM-3772-LPA-2017 in LPA-1751-2017, CM-
3791-LPA-2017 & CM-3792-LPA-2017 in LPA-1763-2017,CM-3811-
LPA-2017 & CM-3812-LPA-2017 in LPA-1774-2017,CM-3839-LPA-
2017 & CM-3840-LPA-2017 in LPA-1790-2017,CM-4179-LPA-2017
& CM-4180-LPA-2017 in LPA-1923-2017,CM-4246-LPA-2017 &
CM-4247-LPA-2017 in LPA-1958-2017,CM-4351-LPA-2017 & CM-
4352-LPA-2017 in LPA-1998-2017,CM-4519-LPA-2017 & CM-4520-
LPA-2017 in LPA-2065-2017,CM-4522-LPA-2017 & CM-4523-LPA-
2017 in LPA-2066-2017 and CM-2600-LPA-2018 in LPA-978-2018
For the reasons stated in the applications, which are duly
supported by affidavits, delay in filing as well as re-filing the appeals is
condoned.
Applications stand allowed.
CM-4860-LPA-2018 in LPA-1720-2017, CM-4851-LPA-2018 in LPA-
1751-2017, CM-4861-LPA-2018 in LPA-1763-2017,CM-4869-LPA-
2018 in LPA-1774-2017,CM-4858-LPA-2018 in LPA-1790-2017,CM-
4849-LPA-2018 in LPA-1923-2017, CM-4843-LPA-2018 in LPA-
1956-2017,CM-4850-LPA-2018 in LPA-1957-2017, CM-4859-LPA-
2018 in LPA-1958-2017, CM-5055-LPA-2018 in LPA-2065-2017,CM-
4842-LPA-2018 in LPA-2066-2017 and CM-2601-LPA-2018 in LPA-
978-2018
Allowed as prayed for. Order dated 28.03.2017 passed by
the learned Single Judge is taken on record.
Main appeals
1. By this common order, a bunch of 13 Letters Patent Appeals
(mentioned above) shall stand disposed of.
2. The appellant (employer) in the present intra court appeals
assail the judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 28.03.2017 passed
in a bunch of petitions including CWP-26514-2016 titled as 'Senior
Superintendent of Post Offices vs. Harbhajan Singh and others',
whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions of the
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100717-DB
employer assailing the order of the Authority under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as '1972 Act') as well as the
Appellate Authority whereby the gratuity due to the private respondents
under the '1972 Act' was directed to be paid by the employer.
3. Today, when these cases have come up for hearing, learned
counsel for the employer (appellant) has produced before us a decision
of the Apex Court rendered in 'Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices vs.
Gursewak Singh and others' 2019(15) SCC 292, wherein it has been
observed as under:-
"9.4. Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act excludes
persons who hold a post with the Central or State
Government and a are governed by any other Act or rules
providing for payment of gratuity.
Gramin Dak Sewaks are engaged as Extra Departmental
Agents, a post governed by the 2011 Rules. Superintendent
of Post Officers v. PK Rajamma; (1977) 3 SCC 94 See also
Union of India v. Kameshwar Prasad; (1997) 11 SCC 650
These Rules have a separate provision for payment of
Gratuity to the Extra Departmental Agents.
A Gramin Dak Sewak is not an "employee" under the 1972
Act. The first issue is answered accordingly."
4. From the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, it is
obvious that it has been categorically held that Gramin Dak Sewak is not
an employee as defined under Section 2 (e) of the '1972 Act' and
therefore, the Gramin Dak Sewaks (private respondents) are not entitled
to gratuity under the '1972 Act'. However, what is culled out from the
law laid down by the Apex Court in Sr. Superintendent of Post
Offices's case (supra) is that the Gramin Dak Sewaks may not be
entitled to gratuity under the '1972 Act' but would be entitled to gratuity
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100717-DB
as per the service rules and regulations as applicable to them i.e Gramin
Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.
5. In view of the above, when the law has been settled by the
Apex Court, this Court disposes of all the present Letters Patent Appeals
with the following directions:-
i) the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.03.2017
and the orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972 as well as the Appellate Authority are set aside.
ii) The respondents (employees) would, however, be
entitled to the benefit of gratuity in terms of the provisions of the
Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, which if
not released to the respondent employees be released with interest @ 6%
per annum with effect from the date the gratuity became due.
iii) No costs.
(SHEEL NAGU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
JUDGE
06.08.2024
rekha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
