Appeal dismissed. Employees governed by specific pension rules after 1994 were entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as local rules prejudiced their rights by reducing payments.
Appeal failed; respondents entitled to gratuity under the Act cannot be prejudiced by subsequent rules.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
LPA No. 746 of 2010
Date of Decision: July 2, 2010
Municipal Committee, Lehragaga and another
…Appellants
Versus
Hans Raj and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Salil Sagar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate,
for the appellants.
M.M. KUMAR, J.
This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 18.1.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 3759 of 1998.
LPA No. 746 of 2010
2
opinion of the Government the employees of such establishment are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefit conferred under the Act. Under Section 5(3) of the Act a specific provision has been made that a notification could be issued retrospectively but it shall not be issued so as to prejudicially affect the interest of any person. Learned Single Judge has found that the matter was not res integra as in the case of Municipal Council, Pathankot v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and others (CWP No. 15423 of 2008, decided on 22.9.2008)
a Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. was a member) held that the notification issued on 31.8.2007 exempting the employees of the Local Bodies from the operation of the Act on the ground that in respect of those employees of the Urban Local Bodies, Rules were enforced which were known as ‘the Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994’ and ‘the Punjab Improvement Trust Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994’. These rules are also applicable to the petitioner-respondents. Those rules have been applied to such employees who were appointed on or after 1.4.1990 and are governed by the aforesaid rules. Interpreting the aforesaid rules in the light of Section 5(2) of the Act, the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:-
“ A close examination of the afore extracted para of the notification would show that the exemption granted to Urban Local Body employees was to operate subject to one vital condition that the notification was not to substantially affect the interests of any person as provided by sub section 3 of Section 5 of the Act. It has come on record that interest of the employee-
LPA No. 746 of 2010
3
respondent No. 3 is adversely affected as exemption notification issued under Section 5(2) of the Act would result into payment of far less amount admissible to him under the Act if the same is to be payable under the Rules. A balance amount of Rs. 47,003/- is liable to be paid if the calculation is made under the Act. Moreover, the request made by the Director Local Government was only in respect of those employees who were appointed on or after 1.4.1990 and were governed by the Rules w.e.f. the aforementioned date. The petitioners were appointed in the year 1968, 1963, 1968, 1961, 1963 and 1966. On that basis also the notification cannot be relied upon by the petitioner.”
LPA No. 746 of 2010
4
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
July 2, 2010
(A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE
Pkapoor
1 issue framed by the court
Whether any Rule for payment of gratuity could replace the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for employees governed by local rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Municipal Council, Pathankot v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and othersFollowed¶20
Municipal Council, Pathankot v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and others (CWP No. 15423 of 2008)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Municipal Committee, Lehragaga
Hans Raj
M.M. Kumar
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
