DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. SHAIKH SIKANDHARBHAI HUSENBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocate, Ms. Krishna Raval, appearing on behalf of petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner - Deputy Executive Engineer (R and B) Department, Surendranagar District Panchayat, has challenged the order passed by the Controlling Authority in Gratuity Application No. 8 of 2006 dated 24. 4. 2006. The Controlling Authority, Surendranagar has directed to the petitioner to pay Rs. 36,672/- with 10% simple interest w. e. f. 14. 12. 2005. That order has been challenged in Appeal before the appellate authority being Appeal No. 56 of 2006 dated 6. 10. 2006, whereby, the order passed by the Controlling Authority has been confirmed by appellate authority.

(3.) LEARNED advocate, Ms. Krishna Raval, raised first contention that respondent is not an employee within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the Gratuity Act,1972 and second contention is that Gratuity Act is not applicable to the petitioner. She relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Union of India and Anr. v. Manik Lal Banerjee reported in (2006) 9 SCCC 643. She also submitted that Railway employees are not governed by Payment of Gratuity Act in view of Section 2 (e) thereof, because such employees are governed by the Railway Service and Pension Rules. The Apex Court has considered that Rule 70 to Railway servant provides for payment of gratuity. Rule 49 of the said Rules provides for the manner in which emoluments of such an employee should be calculated. ?pay? in those Rules means the pay in the revised scales under the Fourth Pay Commission Report.