RAM SARAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a direction to the respondents for payment of gratuity by treating the month as of 26 days alongwith interest @ 12 per cent p.a. from the date when the amount of gratuity became payable till the date of its payment.

(2.) The father of the petitioners Shanti Ram joined service of Municipal Committee, Ambala as Sweeper on 1.6.1954 and after rendering more than 24 years of service he died on 1.8.1978 when he was working as Octroi Peon. The mother of the petitioners Smt. Bawi Devi wife of late Shanti Ram joined the service of the respondent Municipal Committee, Ambala on 1.10.1971 and she retired from service on 30.9.1981. She expired on 29.8.1982. The petitioners who are the sons and daughter of the deceased employees filed representations with the respondents claiming payment of gratuity which was admissible to their parents (Annexures P-1 and P-2). This Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Ambala City in his letter dated 26.8.1988 addressed to the Director Local Bodies, Haryana, Chandigarh had asserted that father of the petitioners had expired on 1.8.1978 during service and their mother retired on 30.9.1981. He cited Government letter No. 22132/85-3-CII dated 15.9.1985 in which a provision for payment of gratuity to the municipal employees has been made applicable w.e.f. 23.1.1982. It was asserted that no gratuity was admissible. It is thus obvious that the cut off date of 23.1.1982 was fixed and the parents of the petitioners having expired or retired earlier to that were not held entitled to the payment of gratuity. However, the petitioners sent another representation dated 15.9.1988 by contradicting the opinion expressed by the Chief Executive Officer and claimed that a Division Bench of this Court had granted the benefit of gratuity to all those employees who have retired after 1972. A reference was also made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kundan Lal Narang and others v. State of Haryana, 1987 4 SLR 789(Annexure P-4). It has further been asserted that while calculating the amount of gratuity a month is treated as comprising of 26 days and not 30 days. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 6998 of 1986 (Hukmi Devi and another v. the Municipality, Ambala and others) decided on 21.7.1987. It has further been claimed that the petitioners would also be entitled to interest @ not less than 12 percent p.a.

(3.) The Municipal Committee in its reply has taken the stand that the Division Bench decision of this Court in Kundan Lal's case has been stayed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 30.3.1988 passed in Civil Misc. Petition No. 313 of 1988 (State of Haryana and another v. Kundan Lal Narang). The date of appointment of Shanti Ram father of the petitioners is stated to be 1.6.1955 and not 1.6.1954. The stand taken by the Chief Executive Officer in his communication dated 26.8.1988 asserting that no gratuity was payable to those who have retired before the cut off date i.e. 23.1.1982 has been reiterated.