AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. ELLVINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, the petitioner of this petition has challenged the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Annexure-'A' and also order of the Appellate Authority Annexure-'B' dated 5-7-2000 confirming the order of the Controlling Authority.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this petition are as under : The respondent was serving as Health Visitor in the New Chest Clinic - T. B. Hospital owned by the petitioner. One Dr. Deshpande was In-charge of this hospital. The employees suffering from chest disease are entitled to have certificate of the Medical Officer in-charge of Chest Clinic. One Shri Mahendra Parikh complained the Deputy Municipal Commissioner regarding demand of Rs. 300-00 as illegal gratification by the respondent to have a certificate of Dr. Deshpande that the said person was suffering from Tuberculosis. A trap was arranged for the respondent and Dr. Deshpande on 18-12-1991. The trap proved successful. As a consequence thereof, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner appointed one Shri D. B. Dixit as Inquiry Officer. During enquiry, all the charges were established against the respondent. Enquiry report was submitted on 28-2-1994. Agreeing with the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority issued show-cause notice to the respondent as to why she should not be dismissed from service. In the meantime, the respondent filed Civil Suit Nos. 4267 of 1994 and 6563 of 1994 against the show-cause notice.

(3.) The Civil Court passed an order that, the order of punishment if any passed, would not be implemented by the petitioner for 15 days from the date of service. On 8-11-1995, the respondent was dismissed from the service. Thereafter, she filed Civil Suit No. 6397 of 1995 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. Interim Order was passed by the Civil Court directing the parties to maintain status quo. Under the garb of this order, the respondent continued in service till 31-5-1998 and she reached the age of superannuation. Accordingly, she retired on attaining the age of superannuation. She approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act complaining that she was not paid gratuity, despite the fact that the petitioner did not pass any order for forfeiture of gratuity. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 4-1-1999 allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. One lakh as gratuity to the respondent. This order was modified by the Controlling Authority on 16-2-1999 by enhancing the gratuity amount to Rs. 1,17,900-00 Annexure-'A' collectively.