NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD MUZAFFARNAGAR Vs. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. Raising a somewhat interesting question the present writ petition has been filed. The question involved in the present petition is regarding the applicability of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as the Act) and the UP. Nagar Mahapalika Non-Centralized Ser vices Retirement Benefit Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Regu lation) with respect to employees of Nagar Mahapalika Non Centralized Services.

(2.) THE facts of the case are not much in dispute. Ram Saran Ruhela, the respondent No. 3, who was working with the petitioner was placed under suspen sion, charge-sheeted and his services were terminated vide order dated 8th of January, 1991. He was dismissed by the order dated 8th December, 1995. THE said order was modified by the appellate authority and dismissal was substituted by an adverse entry and stoppage of two increments. THE matter came up before this Court in two writ petitions being writ petition Nos. 1998 of 1996 and 7140 of 1996. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and were decided by a com mon judgment dated 15th of October, 2003. It was held by this Court that the contesting respondent herein is entitled for subsistence allowance and in addi tion thereto 30 per cent of back wages from the date of suspension to the date of reinstatement. THE amounts were directed to be paid within three months. THE necessary payments were made to the respondent No. 3 which is evident from the receipt dated 27th February, 2004. In the meantime, the respondent retired and he filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 claiming gratuity for a total period of service i. e. 40 years three months and 11 days. THE said proceeding was contested on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for any gratuity as he was removed from the services by the order dated 18th February, 1995. It was further stated that in view of the Rule 10, the respondent No. 3 is not entitled either for gratuity or family pension. THE Controlling Authority by the order dated 7th October, 2005 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 61,347/- as gratuity with interest etc. as per the Gratuity Act. THE said amount has also been paid. However, an appeal being appeal No. 138 of 2005 was filed before the appellate authority under the Act.

(3.) A pristine question of law is involved as to whether the provisions of the Regulation will be attracted as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner or the gratuity shall be payable as per the provisions of the Gratuity Act.