Dismissed

Krishan Kanta v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2009CWP/1375/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired Sanskrit lecturer, filed a writ petition seeking an additional gratuity amount claimed to be payable under unspecified provisions. The court examined a reply from the college stating no statutory obligation existed, only a voluntary internal scheme yielding a lower amount, and found the claim unsupported.

What did the court decide?

None. Petitioner's petition dismissed for failure to show provision for claimed gratuity.

Krishan Kanta Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 1375 of 2009

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : 01.04.2009

¶4

Dr. Krishan Kanta

¶5

.... PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

¶10

Present: Ms. Jyoti Sareen, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.

¶13

The petitioner was working as Lecturer in Sanskrit in Hindu Kanya College, Kapurthala – respondent No.5. She retired from service on 30.4.2006.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that after her retirement, she was entitled to receive gratuity to the tune of Rs. 3.50 lacs, whereas respondent No.5 College offered her only an amount of Rs. 2.80 lacs on account of gratuity as full and final payment, as stated in the reply (Annexure P-3), given by respondent No.5 College to the legal notice served by the petitioner.

¶15

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the contents of the petition.

¶16

CWP No. 1375 of 2009

¶17

-2-

¶18

It is not the case of the petitioner that she is governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. She has not annexed any Rules, framed by the Government or by respondent No.5 College, whereby she is entitled for gratuity amount to the tune of Rs. 3.50 lacs. However, in the reply (Annexure P-3), given by respondent No.5 College, it has been stated that there is no statutory rule binding on it to pay the gratuity to its teaching staff. However, the Managing Committee of respondent No.5 College in its meeting held on 11.5.2003 had decided on its own to pay 12 days salary of each year of qualifying service upto a maximum amount of Rs. 2.80 lacs to the employees of the College, who superannuated after reaching the age of 60 years. It is stated in the reply that according to the said decision, the petitioner was asked to collect the cheque of her gratuity amount of Rs. 2.80 lacs, but she did not collect the same. It has been further stated that as and when the petitioner wants to collect the said cheque, the same will be handed over to her.

¶19

In view of the said stand taken by respondent No.5 College in the reply (Annexure P-3), I am of the opinion that since the petitioner has failed to show any provision under which she is entitled for gratuity amount of Rs. 3.50 lacs, no relief can be granted to her in this regard.

¶20

As far as the payment of arrears of Provident Fund is concerned, in the reply (Annexure P-3), it has been stated that the said claim has already been submitted for the earliest payment to the employee concerned and no further action on the part of respondent No.5 College is

¶21

CWP No. 1375 of 2009

¶22

-3-

¶23

required.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

¶25

April 01, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE

Krishan Kanta v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kanta v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurcharan Singh Vs Post Graduate Institute,Chd.

Fardeen Iqbal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dharamvir and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vipin Beniwal Vs Fatehabad Central Coop Bank Ltd. Fatehabad

Joginder Kaur Vs Punjab Mandi Board and Ors.

Kabaz Ram Vs State of Haryana & Ors.