SUKH RAM CHANDEL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions pertain to a common subject matter, hence, they are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE petitioners in both the petitions were serving in the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. in different capacities. They stood superannuated between the years 2006 and 2010. Annexure P -10 (annexed to CWP No. 7761 of 2013 at page 134) unveils the factum of the respondent -corporation having adopted the government pattern with regard to the release of retirement or gratuity to its employees w.e.f. 26.8.2006. The decision as comprised in Annexure P -10 (annexed with CWP No. 7761 of 2013) was in consonance with the decision taken in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent -corporation held on 26.8.2006. The government of Himachal Pradesh issued notification of 14th October, 2009, Annexure P -13, (annexed with CWP No. 7761 of 2013 at page 180), whereby it begot a revision of the rates of gratuity payable to its employees. The petitioners, on the strength of the revision carried out under Annexure P -13 in the rates of gratuity payable to the employees serving under the Himachal Pradesh Government, claim a rate of gratuity at par with the employees of the State Government. The fulcrum for theirs claiming parity of rates of gratuity with the employees of the State Government is Annexure P -10 which as adverted to hereinabove discloses the factum of the respondent -corporation having come to adopt the government pattern with regard to release of gratuity to its employees. However, the effect of Annexure P -10, has been canvassed to be eased by the factum of a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court rendered on 23rd July, 2008 in CWP No. 1332 of 2002 comprised in Annexure P -9, (annexed to CWP No. 7761 of 2013) wherein it has been held that qua the employees of the respondent corporation the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act would be applicable and when in consonance thereto the respondent -corporation came to pass a resolution comprised in Annexure P -10 (annexed to CWP No. 7761 at page 141), it is, hence, amplifyingly canvassed that the respondent -corporation is no longer obliged to carry forward and implement the mandate comprised in Annexure P -10 qua the factum of its defraying to its employees gratuity at par with the rates of gratuity assessed/fixed for its employees by the government of Himachal Pradesh. However, the effect of the verdict of this Court and of the resolution of the Board of Directors in consonance thereto comprised in Annexure R -2/C (annexed to CWP No. 7761 of 2013, at page 274), to the considered mind of this Court comes to be eased as well as relaxed in the face of a pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Y.K. Singla versus Punjab National Bank and others, : (2013)3 SCC 472, relevant paragraph No. 23 whereof stand extracted hereinafter. A reading whereof discloses that even when the provisions of the Gratuity Act are applicable to an employee/class of employees, there is an inherent right vested in an employee/class of employees to make a choice of theirs being governed by some alternative provision/instrument other than the Gratuity Act for drawing the benefit of gratuity. Relevant paragraph No. 23 of the judgment supra reads as under: -