DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed an order of competent authority dated 12.7.2004 under Payment of Gratuity Act, whereby the competent authority allowed the application of the respondent No.1 and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.48,048.50/- with 10% interest to the Respondent No.1.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that the respondent No.1 retired as Assistant Foreman from the services of the petitioner corporation on 31.12.1995. During service, he was allotted quarter No.114, DTC Colony, G.T.K. Road, Rana Pratap Bagh, New Delhi on license fee basis. After retirement, the respondent did not vacate the residential quarter alloted to him and continued to occupy it unauthorizedly and is still in occupation of the quarter . Since the workman was in unauthorized occupation of the quarter, he authorized management by filing an affidavit to retain Rs.20,000/- from his gratuity amount on account of water and electricity charges and other damages for occupying the quarter. The Respondent No.1 was governed by rules and regulations of DTC who had introduced a pension scheme in February, 1992. As per the scheme, the gratuity payable to the employees whose pay did not exceed Rs.2500/- per month, was to be as per the Payment of Gratuity Act and in case of those employees whose wages exceed Rs.2500/-, gratuity was payable subject to maximum of 16" times the emoluments or Rs.1,00,000/-, whichever was less. Since the respondent No.1 had opted for pension scheme, he was entitled for payment of gratuity in terms of the scheme applicable to him. The gratuity, as calculated, in accordance with the scheme in respect of the respondent amounted to Rs.,68,260.50/-. After retaining Rs.20,000/- on account of non vacation of the quarter, balance amount of Rs.48,260.50 was paid to him. The workman made an application under the Payment of Gratuity Act to the controlling authority demanding gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act amounting to Rs.88,309/- and claimed balance amount of Rs.40,048.50/-. The Controlling Authority vide impugned order dated 12.7.2004 held that respondent No.1 was entitled to gratuity of Rs.88,309/-. Since he had been paid only Rs.48,260.50, he was held entitled to balance amount of Rs.40,050/-. Controlling Authority also awarded interest @ 10% over the unpaid amount from the date it became due.

(3.) Respondent No.1 as regard his unauthorized occupation of government accommodation even after ten years of his retirement stated that under a social welfare scheme, he was provided the premises to live in. Under this scheme, the ownership of the house licensed to him by the petitioner, was to be transferred to him and the management had passed resolution with respect to transfer of ownership to the allottees but later on the management reversed this resolution and since he was entitled to ownership of the house under the previous resolution, he was still in occupation of the house and he was entitled to gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act.