M L BANGA Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question arises in the present case is as to that whether the amendment brought under the Payment of Gratuity Act covers the case of the petitioner to entitle him to claim the increased amount of gratuity.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was superannuated on 31.10.95 and the said amendment in the Payment of Gratuity Act enhancing the limit from Rs.1 lac to Rs.2.50 lacs became effective from 1.4.95. In support of his arguments counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 50 of CCS (Pension) Rules dealing with the regulations of the amount of pension. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rukmani Widow of Baru Ram Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2005 106 FLR 294 and the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors., 2005 6 SCC 754. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in reply to the RTI, the respondent through its Senior Officer has taken a stand that the amount of ceiling of the gratuity was enhanced from Rs. 1 lac to Rs.2.50 lacs and thereafter the ceiling was raised to Rs. 3.50 lacs. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the ordinance dated 24.9.97 became effective from 1.4.95 as would be evident from Rule 50 of the CCS (Pensions) Rules.

(3.) Refuting the said submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Kapoor counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has already been paid Rs. 1 lac towards his gratuity, payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Counsel further submits that the ceiling amount of Rs.1 lac was enhanced to Rs. 3.5 lacs through the amending act of 1998 and the said amendment became effective from 24.9.97. In support of his arguments counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the said Amendment Act 1998, whereby Section 4 of the Gratuity Act was amended to enhance the limit of Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 3.50 lacs. Mr. Rajiv Kapoor further submits that in the additional affidavit filed by the respondent bank, it has been clearly stated that gratuity to the employees of the bank is payable under one of the schemes i.e. (i) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; (ii) Service gratuity as per DTCS/Award and (iii) Compassionate Gratuity (Officers). Counsel further submits that the petitioner is entitled to the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and not under the other two schemes. Counsel further submits that amendment upon which the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance is not under the Payment of Gratuity Act but the same relates to retirement gratuity or death gratuity amendment which was brought through Notification dated 17.3.97 published as GSR NO. 177 in the Gazette of India dated 5.4.1997. Counsel thus submits that the said enhancement which the petitioner is claiming is not applicable to him as the petitioner was entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, which has already been paid to him. Counsel further submits that so far the information given by the Officer of the respondent bank is concerned, the same was due to some inadvertent mistake. It wrongly stated that under the Payment of Gratuity Act the amount of ceiling was enhanced from Rs. 1 lac to Rs.2.50 lacs which in fact should have been from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 3.50 lacs as per the said amendment in the Payment of Gratuity Act.