DHAN DEVI MEHATA Vs. RAJASTHAN NON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bone of contention between the parties in this matter is whether the petitioner would be entitled to gratuity as per the law applicable on 6.3.1994 when she attained the age of 58 years which is the normal age of superannuation or on 30.6.1994, the date upto which she was continued in the employment of respondent no. 2-educational institution on extended period of service and also whether the petitioner is entitled to third selection scale on completion of 27 years of service, which the Tribunal by order dated 22.10.1997 (Annexure-5) has declined.

(2.) Shri C.L. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner however pressed the writ petition only on the first prayer i.e. regarding payment of gratuity as per the law applicable on 30.6.1994. His contention is that Tribunal has erred in law by holding that the extended period of service cannot be taken as part of service for the purpose of superannuation and on that basis payment of gratuity cannot be made to the petitioner. It is contended that while this ceiling of the gratuity amount on 6.3.1994 when the petitioner attained the age of superannuation was Rs. 50,000/- but by amendment in the Payment of Gratuity Act, this ceiling was increased to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Petitioner in that event would be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- as gratuity as per the Rule 45 read with Rule 82 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993. Learned counsel in support of his arguments cited the division bench judgement of this Court in Managing Committee, Panabai Ramnath Poddar Senior Secondary School v. State & Ors., D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 609/02, decided on 16.4.09 and division bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s. Darshan Engineering Works v. The Controlling Authority & Ors., 1983 L.I.C. 1451 .

(3.) Per contra, Shri R.K. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner may not be entitled to any benefit beyond the actual date of her retirement because she in that period continued on the basis of reemployment and not original employment. The Tribunal has therefore not committed any error of law in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. In support of this argument, learned counsel cited the judgement of Supreme Court in Ramswaroop Masawan v. Municipal Council & Anr., (1998) 6 SCC 338 . It is contended that once the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and thereby retired on 6.3.1994, she would be according to Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and sub-rule (2) of Rule 45 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 is entitled to only those benefits which were available to her on the date of her superannuation and not when she was discontinued after reemployment. Learned counsel cited the judgement of Supreme Court in State of Kerala & Anr. v. P.V. Neelakandan Nair & Ors., 2005 (4) Supreme 719 to argue that in that judgment the Supreme Court held that teachers even though superannuated during the academic year to be continued in service by virtue of Rule 62 of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 till last date of the month in which the academic year ended i.e. 1.3.1997, would be entitled to benefit of pay revision coming into effect during such extended period.