Jamil Ahmed vs Haryana Wakf Board And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 5659 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jamil Ahmed vs Haryana Wakf Board And Another on 13 March, 2024

Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038618



CWP-28076-2019 and
CWP-34606-2019                                                              -1-
                                                                 2024:PHHC:038618


234+236
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                     Date of decision: 13.03.2024

(I)    CWP-28076-2019

JAMIL AHMED
                                                                       ...Petitioner

                                       VERSUS

HARYANA WAKF BOARD AND ANOTHER
                                                                     ...Respondents

(II)    CWP-34606-2019

FATEH MOHD AND OTHERS
                                                                      ...Petitioners

                                       VERSUS

HARYANA WAKF BOARD AND ANOTHER
                                                                     ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present:-    Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
             for the petitioner(s).

             Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate
             for the respondents.

                    ****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

1. Both the cases are taken up together for final disposal with the

consent of learned counsel for the parties since the subject matter involved in

both the cases is similar in nature.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Civil

Writ Petition No.28076 of 2019.

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038618

CWP-28076-2019 and

2024:PHHC:038618

3. Both the present writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari

for quashing the impugned Resolution No.17(v) dated 13.09.2017 (Annexure

P-8 colly) passed by the Board sanctioning and approving the implementation

and extension limit of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity to the employees of the

Board from Rs.3.50 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs w.e.f. 01.04.2017 at par with Haryana

Government employees instead of 01.01.2006 without there being any proper

agenda and also for quashing the impugned order dated 01.11.2015 issued on

02.11.2015 (Annexure P-7) in CWP-28076-2019 and order dated 06.12.2016

(Annexure P-4) in CWP-34606-2019 rejecting the just and legitimate claim of

the petitioners for releaing the balance payment of gratuity along with interest

and further to direct the respondents to re-calculate the gratuity of the

petitioners on revised rates and pay the difference between the amount due and

amount already paid along with interest @ 18% per annum.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a case where

the petitioners are employees of the respondent-Wakf Board and the Board of

Haryana Wakf Board in its meeting held on 13.09.2017 have resolved that the

Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity will be paid to the employees of the Haryana

Wakf Board with effect from 01.04.2017 at par with the Haryana Government.

He further submitted that the aforesaid decision of the Board by taking up the

issue without any agenda and on the same date was not in accordance with law.

He further submitted that the employees of the respondent-Wakf Board are

governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and so far as

the cut off date for fixing of the ceiling of gratuity is concerned, the same

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038618

CWP-28076-2019 and

2024:PHHC:038618

ceiling under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is governed by a different

Notification, which is of the year 2010 and since the employees of the

respondent-Wakf Board are governed by the provisions of the Payment of

Gratuity Act, 1972, the Board had no occasion to have fixed any cut off date,

which was different from that of the effective date fixed in the Notification

issued under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that so far as the first grievance of the petitioners is concerned, the Board is

well within its powers to put before the Chair and with the permission of the

Chair any agenda item and the same can be considered in accordance with law

and therefore, no fault can be found in the same. He further submitted that so

far as the second issue is concerned, the Board was also within its powers to fix

any cut off date for the purpose of fixing of ceiling of the employees.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Most of the petitioners are stated to have retired before 01.04.2017,

which was the cut off date fixed by the Board. So far as the first grievance of

the petitioners that the Board could not have passed a Resolution without any

agenda is concerned, the same is not sustainable in view of the fact that as per

Annexure P-8 (Colly), the item was put on agenda with the permission of the

Chair. The cut off date was fixed i.e. 01.04.2017 for the purpose of fixing of

ceiling for grant of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. So far as the second

grievance of the petitioners that the petitioners and the employees of the

respondent-Wakf Board are governed by the provisions of the Payment of

Gratuity Act, 1972 and therefore, no other date other than that fixed under the

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038618

CWP-28076-2019 and

2024:PHHC:038618

Notification issued under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 can be fixed by the

Board is concerned, the same needs to be dealt with.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners had argued that so far as the

question as to whether the petitioners being employees of the respondent-Wakf

Board are governed under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

or not is concerned, the same stands answered in a judgment passed by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure P-10 on 13.02.2014, wherein it

was held that the employees of the Haryana Wakf Board are governed by the

provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 since the aforesaid Act is fully

applicable to the employees of the Haryana Wakf Board. He also referred to a

Notification dated 17.05.2010 issued by the Government of India under the

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which is at page No.83 of the paper-book,

wherein the ceiling of gratuity was enhanced from Rs.3.50 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs

and the same has come into effect from 24.05.2010.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is therefore

of the considered view that once the petitioners and the employees of the

Haryana Wakf Board are governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity

Act, 1972, then the Notification which was issued by the Central Government

under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 will directly apply to the petitioners,

wherein the effective date when the aforesaid Notification came into force was

24.05.2010 and therefore, any employee who retired after the aforesaid date

was to be granted the benefit of ceiling of Rs.10 lakhs of gratuity and any date

fixed by the Board vide Annexure P-8 (Colly), which comes in contradiction

with the aforesaid Notification issued by the Central Government cannot

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038618

CWP-28076-2019 and

2024:PHHC:038618

sustain. In the impugned Resolution (Annexure P-8), the cut off date has been

fixed to be 01.04.2017, whereas the cut off date which has been fixed by way of

Notification issued by the Central Government is 24.05.2010 from where it

became effective and therefore, the Notification which has been issued by the

Central Government will prevail upon the aforesaid Resolution.

10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners are entitled for interest as per Section 7 Clause (3A) of the Payment

of Gratuity Act, 1972. Section 7 Clause (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act,

1972 is reproduced as under:-

"(3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify.

Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground."

xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx

11. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are allowed. The

impugned Resolution No.17(v) dated 13.09.2017 (Annexure P-8 Colly) is

hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to calculate the remaining Death-

cum-Retirement Gratuity of the petitioners in accordance with the Notification

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038618

CWP-28076-2019 and

2024:PHHC:038618

of the Central Government under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act,

1972 dated 17.05.2010, which came into force with effect from 24.05.2010 and

pay the same to the petitioners in accordance with law, within a period of three

months from today, along with interest @ 6% per annum (simple) from the date

the gratuity became due till it is actually paid to the petitioners.

                                                 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
13.03.2024                                               JUDGE
Chetan Thakur


                Whether speaking/reasoned        :     Yes/No
                Whether reportable               :     Yes/No




                                        6 of 6