MANUBHAI MANEKLAL PARMAR Vs. MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . In this writ petition, the petitioner who was appointed as Recovery Officer under Respondent no.1 after his retirement from his regular service with State Government, has questioned the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 7-4-1999 passed in Appeal No. 6 of 1999 by the Appellate Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

(2.) . The facts leading to filing of the present petition shortly shortly are:- That the petitioner was earlier serving as Deputy Collector with the State Government and after his retirement from the said service, he was appointed as Recovery Officer under respondent no.1 for recovery of the dues payable by the Cooperative Societies to respondent No. 1. The petitioner was appointed as such on 11-10-1986. He worked as Recovery Officer till 15-5-1993 and his services were put to an end vide order dated 5-5-1993. Thereafter on 5-6-1993 petitioner was again appointed as Recovery Officer under respondent No.1 and the petitioner worked as Recovery Officer Officer under respondent No.1 till 18-10-1997. The petitioner applied before the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, claiming gratuity for the period from 11-10-1986 till 18-10-1997 for a period of 11 years, during which he states to have worked as Recovery Officer under respondent No.1. Controlling Authority under the said Act acceded to the request of the petitioner and directed respondent No.1 to pay gratuity amounting to Rs.16,830/within fifteen days. Respondent No. 1 challenged the said order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Act by way of Appeal No. 6 of 1999 before the appellate authority under the Act. The appellate authority vide order dated 7-4-1999 partly allowed the appeal preferred by respondent no.1 and set aside the order passed by the controlling authority to the extent holding the present petitioner to be entitled to the gratuity for the period only for the first part of the service, namely from 11-10-1986 to 15-5-1993 and disallowed the claim for gratuity for the subsequent period, that is from 5-6-1993 to 18-10-1997.

(3.) . The petitioner by present Special Civil Application has been questioning the legality of the order of the appellate authority disallowing the claim for gratuity for the period 5-6-1993 to 18-10-1997. It is submitted by Ms. S.K. Mandavia, learned counsel for the petitioner that, the appellate authority is not legally justified in disallowing claim of gratuity for the period 5-6-1993 to 18-10-1997 in as much as the break of 20 days is artificial and that the services of the petitioner should have been treated as one continuous for the purpose of gratuity payable to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the order passed by the controlling authority directing payment of Rs.16,830.00 by way of gratuity to the petitioner be restored. As against this, it is submitted by Mr. B.A. Vaishnav, learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the petitioner was relieved from service w.e.f. 15-5-1993 and his rejoining as Recovery Officer under respondent No. 1 from 5-6-1993 being a distinct employment cannot be regarded as continuing service and the break, may be of 20 days, would disentitle the petitioner to claim gratuity treating his service as one continuous and the subsequent period i.e. from 5-6-1993 to 18-10-1997 is less than five years which would also disentitle the petitioner to the payment of gratuity for the subsequent period.