KRISHAN LAL AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are employees under the respondents 3 to 7 seek for quashing the order issued under Annexure P-7 rejecting the petitioners' plea for grant of gratuity. The representations yielded to the impugned order on the ground that the they had availed of the benefits of the pension under the Punjab Improvement Trust Employees Pension and the General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 and hence not entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Referring to the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, Volume-1, Part-I, it is stated that as per Rule 2.45 except where the term "pension" is used in contradistinction to "gratuity", pension includes gratuity also. The pension and gratuity are paid to the employees of the Government as well as the other local bodies because pension includes gratuity.

(2.) It must be noticed that the Punjab Civil Services Rules themselves could afford no guidance to us for determining the controversy. The petitioners are all governed by the Pension Rules that are applicable to local bodies and there are no rules similar to Rule 2.45 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-1, Part-1 outlined above. Further it appears that the Government had applied for exemption notification from the payment of gratuity, while allowing for pension scheme to be applied to employees of the local bodies, only to persons who were appointed on or after 01.04.1990. Admittedly, all the petitioners have been appointed before the said date. The effect of this notification and the application of the provisions of the Gratuity Act as regards the persons, who had been employed before 01.04.1990 came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 15423 of 2008 in Municipal Council, Pathankot V. the Appellate Authority by the decision dated 22.09.2008. The Division Bench has held that the exemption itself was sought only with reference to persons, who had been appointed on or after 01.04.1990 and it could not operate to exempt persons, who were appointed prior to the date. It had also observed that by virtue of the clause mentioned in the notification that it would not prejudicially affect the interest of persons as provided under Section 5(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the persons, who were prejudicially affected by payments of sums through the pension which was lesser than what was granted under the Gratuity Act, could not be denied the benefit.

(3.) In the short reply filed by the Additional Secretary Department of Local Government, it is averred that the said decision was rendered in the absence of the State of Punjab that exemption given to the department for payment of Gratuity Act w.e.f. 01.04.1990 was applicable to all those employees who had opted as per Sub-rule (3)(i) and (3)(ii) of the Pension Rules, 1994 and also to those employees who were appointed on 01.04.1990. The relevant provisions is under Rule 3(i)(ii) states that they shall apply to employees of the Committees: