BHIM SEN JINDAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short issue raised in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the Notification dated 19.3.2001 (Annexure P-8) exempting all the Municipalities in the State of Haryana from the operation of the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for brevity the Act') is sustainable in the eyes of law'. Another ancillary question emerges for determination is 'whether the employees working in the Municipalities in the State of Haryana are in receipt of Gratuity and Pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefit conferred under the provisions of the Act'.

(2.) The matter was placed before the Full Bench and it has been held vide order dated 21.04.2010 that conflict between two Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the case of Kundan Lal Narang v. The State of Haryana,1950 881 RSJ 337 and the contrary view taken by another Division Bench judgment-rendered in the case of Municipal Committee, District Hisar v. Appellate Authority, 1994 2 SCT 732 , has been settled by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dharam Parkash Sharma, 1999 2 SCT 297 . Accordingly, it has been held that all retired employees of the Municipal Committees were entitled to payment of Gratuity after enforcement of the Gratuity Act, 1972 and in accordance with its provisions until and unless the power of exemption under Section 5 of the Act was exercised. While answering reference, Hon'ble the Full Bench has left open the aforesaid question by making reference to Notification dated 19.3.2001 (Annexure P-8). Accordingly, the matter has been placed before us.

(3.) Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. The petitioner retired as Secretary from the Municipal Committee, Nilokheri on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.2.1995. When his retinal benefit were not paid, he served a legal notice on the respondents asserting that the directions have been issued by this Court to the respondents in the case of Jagdev Singh v. State of Haryana, C.W.P. No. 17364 of 1994, decided on 25.4.1995 to the effect that arrears of salary of employees of Municipal Committees in Haryana be paid. On 5.5.1995, Director Local Bodies-respondent No. 2 issued directions to all the Municipal Committees to pay retiral benefit to its employees within a period of one month. He also issued directions to the respondents No. 3 and 4 to pay arrears to the petitioner without any delay. It is appropriate to mention that the respondent-State has already framed Rules known as Haryana-Municipal Employees Pension & General Provident Funds Rules, 1993. The Rules have come in operation from 16.4.1992. According to the written statement filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, the petitioner has been paid leave encashment, provident fund and gratuity and that he has been drawing his pension regularly. It has also been asserted that the pension scheme for all the Municipal employees in the State of Haryana was implemented w.e.f. 16.4.1992 after making necessary amendments in the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. The Government has also expressed the view that the employees in all the Municipalities in the State of Haryana were in receipt of Gratuity and Pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under Act of 1972. The Notification dated 19.3.2001 issued under Section 5 has been given retrospective effect from 16.4.1992.