CPWD challenged appellate authority orders granting gratuity for muster roll service, contending only the Pension Rules applied with 50% counting of such service. Relying on prior decisions holding muster roll service must count in full under the social welfare legislation, the Court found no infirmity and dismissed the petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~47-57
MANAGEMENT OF CPWD .....Petitioner
Through: versus SHRI UPENDRA KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Manoj Joshi and Ms.Richa Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.1 Mr.Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel for GNCTD Mr.Shiven Varma, Advocate
Through: versus SH. OTTA .....Respondent Through: Mr.Manoj Joshi and Ms.Richa Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.1 Mr.Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel for GNCTD Mr.Shiven Varma, Advocate
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:49:11
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:49:11
Through: versus
SMT. MUNNI BAI .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Manoj Joshi and Ms.Richa Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.1 Mr.Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel for GNCTD Mr.Shiven Varma, Advocate
MANAGEMENT OF C.P.W.D. .....Petitioner
Through: versus VINOD KUMAR TRIVEDI .....Respondent Through: Mr.Manoj Joshi and Ms.Richa Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.1 Mr.Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel for GNCTD Mr.Shiven Varma, Advocate
Through: Mr.Vijay Joshi, Mr.Shubham C., and Mr.Hemant Goyal, Advocates
versus
SMT MALIN SINCE DECEASED THROUGH SHRI RAM
.....Respondent Through: Mr.Manoj Joshi and Ms.Richa Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.1 Mr.Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel for GNCTD Mr.Shiven Varma, Advocate
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:49:11
SH. BHORI LAL AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr.Manoj Joshi and Ms.Richa Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.1 Mr.Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel for GNCTD Mr.Shiven Varma, Advocate
THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
.....Petitioner
Through: versus SHRI INDERLOK MAL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Manoj Joshi and Ms.Richa Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.1 Mr.Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel for GNCTD Mr.Shiven Varma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
O R D E R % 02.05.2025
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:49:11
No. 22/47/2018-EC-X dated 22.04.2022 to argue that management is liable to pay only 50% of service rendered under Muster-Roll period for gratuity.
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:49:11
applicability. It held as under:-
“7. Undisputedly, the respondents were offered appointment by the petitioner in its own rights. There is a relationship of employer and employee amongst the petitioner and the respondents is also not in question. Petitioner is an establishment under the Act, 1972, also not being in question and sub-Section (e) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972 not coming to the aid to the petitioner, there is no reason as to why, the respondents would not be covered within the purview of the Act, 1972.
8. In the other limb of his submissions, though Mr. Rajappa, ld. counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents were part time employees and therefore, the Act, 1972 was not applicable to the respondents, he fails to point out any statutory provision, rule or regulation, in support of such submissions. The Court does not find merit even in the submission so made. An employee is an employee, whether on casual, ad-hoc or part time basis. The definition of employee in the Act, 1972 also does not speak of any specific categories of the employees for its applicability, be it, regular, ad-hoc, part time, casual etc. etc. As for the payment of gratuity under the subject Act, to assess the quantum thereof, it provides for the definition of wages in sub-Section (s) of Section 2, which reads as under:
“wages” means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment and which are paid or are payable to him in cash and includes dearness allowance but does not include any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance.”
9. The combined reading of sub-Section (e) and sub-Section (s) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972 leaves no doubt that the gratuity is payable to the employees defined under the subject Act and is to be assessed on the basis of the wages/emoluments, within the ceiling limit as provided there-under.”
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the record. In my view, once the Director General (Works), CPWD himself issued a circular as late as on 26th June, 2006 clarifying that gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, was payable not only to casual workers but also to daily rated and muster roll workers, there is no reason as to why the respondents should be deprived of the benefit of gratuity for their period of service on muster roll. Even otherwise, the Payment of Gratuity Act does not
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:49:11
differentiate in the casual or regular period of service and in fact includes all types of service. There is nothing to show that the intention of the legislature was to exclude muster roll service while computing the gratuity of an employee who is subsequently regularised. The Act being a piece of Social Welfare Legislation cannot be interpreted so narrowly so as to exclude the muster roll service of employees like the respondents who have subsequently been regularised.
“10. A perusal of the aforesaid circular which has been issued by the Directorate General of Works makes it clear that for the purpose of computing qualifying service for payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 not only Muster Roll workers but Casual Workers, Hand Receipt Workers & Daily Rated Workers shall also be entitled for counting of their services and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference by this Court.”
The Court also analysed the circular dated 22.04.2022 which forms the basis of the demand for taking only 50% of the service rendered under temporary status and observed the following:-
“12. The aforesaid Office Memorandum makes it clear that the past service rendered on Muster Roll, Hand Receipt, or Temporary status shall be taken into account for the purpose of computing qualifying service in respect of pension, meaning thereby, time and again the employers have taken a decision to take into account the Muster Roll services rendered as a Muster Roll employee/ temporary status/ Hand Receipt status for the purpose of grant of gratuity and, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.”
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:49:11
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
MAY 2, 2025 na
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:49:11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to muster roll workers notwithstanding reliance on Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and an O.M. limiting gratuity to 50% of muster roll service.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Bal Bhawan v. VandanaRelied on¶5
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11399 · Who else cites this
CPWD v. Ghanshyam SinghRelied on¶6
2019 SCC OnLine Del 7229 · Who else cites this
The Executive Engineer CPWD v. Ghanshyam Singh & Ors.Relied on¶7
LPA 359/2021
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Management of CPWD
Shri Upendra Kumar & Ors.
Sh. Jaipal Singh & Anr.
The Management of Executive Engineer P. Division
Sh. Otta
Smt. Lata Singh & Anr.
Manoj Kumar Ohri
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
