MEWA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for a direction that consequent on extension of service granted to him, he ought not to have been inflicted a reduction in gratuity which was payable at the rate of 1 month's salary for every completed year of service. The problem arose on account of the fact that subsequent to the date of his retirement on 31.12.1987, when he was allowed to continue by an extension of 2 years granted to him, the Payment of Gratuity Act had been applied to Haryana State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation (HAFED). The gratuity was sought to be worked at the rate of 15 days salary for every completed year of service in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that his services with HAFED was from 3.6.1970 and the terms of his employment provided for payment of gratuity at the rate of 1 month's salary for every completed year of service. When an extension was granted to him it was under the same terms and any reduction in his entitlement could not affect the accrued right of gratuity at 1 month's salary for every completed year of service. Learned counsel refers me to the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act itself under Section 4(5) which reads as follows :-

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 states that termination from service must be taken only on the day when he has ceased to be an employee and when the employee had obtained an extension and during his tenure he has come by an application of some other statutory enactment which was applied to the institution. It should be only that enactment which will govern his rights. Learned counsel refers to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ramsaruh Sehgal v. The State of Haryana and another,1988 2 NLR 76 that held that applicability and the scope of the Payment of Gratuity Act would be only to persons who retired after the commencement of the Act. I would take this decision to hold that any benefit that goes to a person shall be worked under the scheme of Payment of Gratuity Act and that would be applicable to a person who retired after the commencement of the Act. The entitlement to gratuity itself is not the point in question in this case. The ruling of the Division Bench must be applied to examine the case where the issue is whether an employee is entitled to gratuity or not. In this case that is not the contention. It is accepted on both the sides that the petitioner is entitled to gratuity, but the question is the rate at which such gratuity is to be paid. The Gratuity Act itself protects the rights which are better than what an employee would get under the Act and that is that benefit which the petitioner seeks through this writ petition. The petitioner is definitely entitled to be protected at a higher rate of gratuity secured through the earlier term of employment.