PUNJABI UNIVERSITY Vs. BHIM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Bhim Singh, the respondent herein, who had joined Punjabi University, Patiala, appellant herein, as a Lecturer on November 28, 1984 and was promoted as a Reader on July, 27, 1987, submitted his resignation which was accepted by the appellant with effect from October 29, 2000 as conveyed to him vide order dated November 21, 2000 (Annexure P1 annexed with writ petition). His request for grant of gratuity and leave encashment was, however, rejected by the appellant-University vide order dated February 21, 2001. He challenged that order and also to challenge order dated February 21, 2001 and seek a direction to the appellant-University to release his gratuity and leave encashment, by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 5398 of 2001. Appellant- University contested respondent's claim on the plea that he was not entitled to the claimed relief under Regulation 2.14 of the University Calendar (for short, 'the Regulation') in so far as he had not completed fifteen years continuous service and his resignation is not covered by the term "retirement". Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the Civil Writ Petition vide order dated October 25, 2013 holding the respondent entitled to gratuity as claimed by him. To assail order dated October 25, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, appellant-University has preferred this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, along with an application for condonation of delay. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants on merits.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that before the learned Single Judge it was argued that the respondent was not entitled to gratuity etc., firstly, because he had not completed fifteen years continuous service with the appellant-University (as required by Proviso to Regulation 2.14) as he remained on extra-ordinary leave from July 29,1998 to October 29, 2000 out of his service period from November 28, 1984 to October 29, 2000; and, secondly, because he resigned his job, and as per Regulation 2.14 gratuity etc. is permissible only on retirement or death. He argues that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UCO Bank and others versus Sanwar Mal, 2004 AIR(SC) 2135, has held that the term "retirement" does not include "resignation", but the learned Single Judge has dealt with only first part of the argument and no finding has been returned on the second point. Learned counsel, however, does not press the argument based on fifteen years continuous service and submits that the respondent having resigned his job, is not entitled to gratuity etc.

(3.) From a perusal of the impugned order it emerges that the argument, which is being raised before us, was not raised before the learned Single Judge, and claim of the respondent was resisted only on the plea that he did not have to his credit fifteen years' continuous service, which plea the learned Single Judge has turned down by observing as under: