RAM PARKASH KAUSHAL Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book.

(2.) Mr. Mahajan vehemently argues that the petitioner would be entitled to gratuity in view of Regulation 13.1 of the Panjab University Calendar, Vol I. He submits that simply because Shri Dhanwantry Ayurvedic College and Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "the College") is an unaided institution, would not debar the petitioner from the benefit of the University statutes. He relies on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of K. Krishnamacharyulu and others v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engg. and another, 1997 3 SCT 155 and Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. V.R. Rudani and others, 1989 AIR(SC) 1607 and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Miss Ravneet Kaur v. The Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, 1997 3 SCT 210 , in support of the submission that writ petition would be maintainable against the respondent-College. Learned counsel also submits that the respondents have wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner being a teacher does not fall within the definition of "employee" as contained in Section 2(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. He also submits that the respondents have wrongly relied on the ratio of law down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Teachers Association v. Administrative Officer, 2004 1 SCT 667 , in the reply submitted to the legal notice which had been served on the respondents-College, on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.