SARPANCH Vs. AMINABIBI MOHAMMAD BAJARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat has inter alia prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 03rd August, 2009 passed by the respondent No.2 in Gratuity Case No.46 of 2007 as well as order dated 28th July, 2009 rendered by the respondent No.2 in Gratuity Case No.1207 of 2002, whereby the respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to pay the amount of gratuity to the respondent No.1 in each petition with interest.

(2.) THE facts in brief in respect of Special Civil Application No.10496 of 2009 are that the respondent No.1 made an application to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat dated 05th October, 2007 in Form No.K for getting the amount of gratuity of Rs.30,009.20 ps. qua her deceased husband-Mohammad Binsad Bajare, who worked with the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 made an application to the office of the respondent No.2 on 18 th October, 2007 for getting the amount of gratuity as aforesaid.

(3.) HAVING considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and the documentary evidence produced on record as well as the averments made in the petition and the above quoted interim order passed by this Court, it transpires that the respondent No.2-authority has, after appreciating the pros and cons of the matter, rightly arrived at the conclusion. The respondent No.2 has rightly considered the documentary evidence produced on record and observed that the respondent No.1 was appointed in Vansada Municipality and thereafter, vide order dated 14th January, 1955 passed by the Collector, Surat, it was converted into Vansada Gram Panchayat as per the Bombay Panchayat Act. The respondent No.2 has rightly observed that the respondent No.1 has worked with the petitioner since the year 1956 and 1952 respectively in both the petitions till 31st May, 1996 continuously, which has been even certified by the petitioner itself. The respondent No.2 has further rightly observed that the petitioner has also released the bonus to the respondent No.1 in both the petitions since the year 1986 and a certificate to that effect has also been given to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 has taken into consideration the evidence on record and has rightly observed that the Gratuity Act will apply in the case of the respondent No.1 in both the petitions. Further, the respondent No.2 has rightly observed in the impugned order that if the affidavit has been filed by the State indicating therein that the respondent No.1 was a Rojamdar, then it cannot be said to be the fault of the respondent No.1 in both the petitions.