B S RAWAT Vs. SHYAM LAL COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner so contended by him that he joined respondent no.1 / College on March 6, 2002 as a Laboratory Attendant. On January 7, 2008, upon tendering resignation, the petitioner was relieved from the services of respondent no.1 / College. The petitioner was only given GPF as terminal benefit. It is his case that gratuity with interest was denied to him. Between December, 2008 to June, 2009 the petitioner had requested the respondents for gratuity and duplicate service book. The request for gratuity was however refused. In so far as the service book is concerned, he was given a photocopy of the same. Between 2010 and 2020, the petitioner has been making representations to the authorities to pay him the gratuity and also provide him with the duplicate service book. Even the legal notices sent to the respondents have not been replied to. He submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Act of 1972) the petitioner is entitled to gratuity even on resignation. He contended that the stand of the University in terms of the Statute 28A of the Statutes, which states that an employee is only entitled to gratuity on retirement / death is totally untenable. According to him, in terms of Section 4 of the Act of 1972, which clearly stipulates payment of gratuity on resignation, provided that, an employee has completed 5 years of service, he is entitled to the benefit. According to him, gratuity is not a bounty, but rather a statutory right of the petitioner and as such the petitioner cannot be denied the said benefit. In support of his submissions, petitioner has relied upon the following Judgments:

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 College would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to gratuity. His submission after drawing my attention to the counteraffidavit filed by the College is that on various occasions, the petitioner has been proceeded against for certain misconducts. He submitted, the charges against the petitioner were very serious and the benefit of gratuity cannot be given to such a person. He conceded to the fact that the petitioner had tendered his resignation which has been accepted by the respondent no.1 / College, which itself according to him was done to evade consequences of his misconduct. That apart, he also stated that a copy of the service book has already been given to the petitioner.