NAGAR NIGAM MEERUT Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Namit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shekhar Srivastava and Mr. Ajay Rajendra, learned counsel for respondent- employee in respective cases in which they have filed Vakalatnama and Mr. Dhananjay Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) Similar controversy are involved in all the aforementioned writ petitions, as such, all the aforementioned writ petitions are being clubbed, heard and disposed of by a common order. The facts stated in Writ C No. 18428 of 2024 shall be treating as a leading petition.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that State of U.P. by means of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam 1959 hereinafter shall be referred to as Act of 1959 promulgated Rules and Regulations with regard to establishment of Nagar Mahapalika/ Nagar Nigam in State of U.P. In pursuance of the aforementioned Act of 1959, Nagar Nigam Meerut has been established in District Meerut in accordance with the provisions contained under Sec. 548 of the Act of 1959 Meerut Nagar Nigam Karamchari Nivritt Suvidha (Retirement Benefits) Regulations 1988 hereinafter shall be referred as Regulation of 1988 has been framed. The aforementioned Regulation of 1988 was published in the Official Gazette of U.P. Government on 22/7/1988 and was made effective from 15/6/1982. Respondent no.2 was appointed as Safai Nayak/ Peon in the petitioner's organization on 18/5/1978 and retired on 30/6/2019. Respondent no.4 filed an application under Sec. 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 hereinafter shall be referred as Act of 1972 on 2/11/2020 before respondent no.3/ Controlling Authority for payment of his gratuity which was registered as P.G.A. case No. 32 of 2021. Petitioner/ Nagar Nigam filed his written statement denying the allegations made by respondent no.4 stating that provisions of the Act of 1972 are not applicable upon the non-centralized employees of the petitioner's organization as well as entire claim of respondent no.4 that is retiral benefits as well as gratuity has already been paid to him as per Regulation of 1988. Respondent no.4 filed his rejoinder affidavit to the written statement reiterating the averment made by him. Parties adduced evidence in support of their cases before respondent no.3/ Controlling Authority. Respondent no. 3 vide impugned order dtd. 28/10/2022 allowed the application filed by respondent no.4 and directed the petitioner/ Nagar Nigam to pay the amount of gratuity @ of Rs.3,05,269.00 along with 8% simple interest from 30/6/2019 till the date of payment. In pursuance of the order dtd. 28/10/2022, recovery certificate has been issued on 18/10/2023 against the petitioner. Hence this writ petition for the following relief: