HARWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashment of Rule 3 (Annexure-V) of the Punjab State Cooperative Financing institutions Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1970-71 to the extent of exclusion of dependents of an employee who died in harness from getting benefits of additional gratuity under clause (b) which would have accrued to the employee after completing 25 years of service. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the respondents to release five months' salary as additional gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,05,005 alongwith 12% interest per annum from the date it became due till the date of disbursement.

(2.) IT appears that petitioner's husband joined the Punjab State Cooperative Bank as a Clerk on 30th July, 1971 and was promoted up to Branch Manager. It also appears that petitioner's husband died in harness while serving as Branch Manager in the said Bank situated at Sector 36-D, Chandigarh. It seems that on death of husband of the petitioner, she was paid gratuity on the basis of Common Cadre Rules, 1970-71 to the tune of Rs. 3,15,015 which amounted to only 15 months salary, as per his last drawn pay scale at the time of his death. It further appears that the petitioner submitted a number of representations to the respondents (including respondent No. 3), praying that her husband had served for more than 30 years and, therefore, she was entitled to get 20 months salary as gratuity (15 months for initial 25 years of service and 5 months as additional gratuity for another five years of service). She also submitted that since such benefits are admissible to the employees falling under clauses (a), (c), (d) and (e), after completion of more than 25 years of service before their resignation, disability and death etc., therefore, she was also entitled to get it. However, as her aforesaid request was not acceded to, she served a legal notice on 14th December, 2002 (Annexure P/2), which also did not yield any positive result. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) THE main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the benefits of five months salary as additional gratuity is admissible to other classes of employees, who have completed 25 years of service, then the petitioner is also entitled to get it and to that extent clauses (b) obviously creates discrimination. Thus, learned counsel has also challenged the vires of the said section and prayed for its quashment.