NAGAR AYUKT NAGAR NIGAM Vs. MERAJ AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar has petitioned this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash an order dated 18.03.2013 passed by the Controlling Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority') under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in PG Case No. 67 of 2010. By the said order made in exercise of powers under Section 10(1) of the Act, the Authority has allowed an application brought by respondent no. 1, a retired class-IV employee of the petitoner-Nagar Nigam ordering the petitioner to pay an outstanding balance of gratuity in the sum of Rs. 96,961/- with 7% simple interest per annum to respondent no. 1 with effect from the date of application, within 30 days of the date of the order. In addition, the Authority has awarded costs in the sum of Rs. 500/- against the petitioner payable to respondent no. 1. The order dated 18.03.2013 as aforesaid, passed by the Authority shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'impugned order'.

(2.) A brief sketch of facts that have led to this petition is that respondent no. 1 was appointed by the petitioner-Nagar Nigam on 01.06.1970 as a class-IV employee. He retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2008, after rendering about 38 years of service. It is the petitioner's case that upon retirement respondent no. 1 was paid all his post retiral benefits, admissible under the Retiral Dues and General Provident Fund Regulation, 1962 framed by the petitioner-Nagar Nigam in exercise of their powers under Section 548 (1)(f) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 which govern a retiring class-IV employee's rights, obligations and entitlement, inter alia, to gratuity besides other retiral benefits.

(3.) It appears that an issue arose between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 about the quantum of gratuity payable to him inasmuch as according to the respondent, a sum of Rs. 2,32,122/- was his entitlement, whereas the petitioner paid him gratuity in the sum of Rs. 1,40,431/-. Respondent no.1, therefore, demanded his outstanding balance towards gratuity in the sum of Rs. 96,961/- along with interest. Being denied, he moved the Authority under Section 10 (1) of the Act asking the Authority to order the petitioner to pay the unpaid balance of his gratuity. The application as aforesaid, made by respondent no. 1, came to be registered as PG Case No. 67 of 2010 on the file of the Authority. It was heard after notice to the petitioner, where the stand of the petitioner was that the provisions of the Act do not invest the Authority with jurisdiction over the petitioner, who are a local body with their own rules governing post retiral benefits, including gratuity.