Judgment · High Court · 2009
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 09 Jul 2009
- Bench
- S N AGGARWAL
Provisions considered
- Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 s. 5
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The question raised for determination in this writ petition is covered by an earlier judgment of this Court dated 06.07.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 9052/2009 titled Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Babu Lal…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No. 9940/2009 & CM No. 8214/2009 Date of Decision: 09 July, 2009 # MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ! Through: Mr. Nalin Tripathi, Addl. Standing Counsel ..... PETITIONER VERSUS $ SMT. V. LAXMI DEVI ^ Through: None .....RESPONDENT CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES To be referred to the reporter or not?YES
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The question raised for determination in this writ petition is covered by an earlier judgment of this Court dated 06.07.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 9052/2009 titled Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Babu Lal wherein it was held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to those employees who have retired from the service of the MCD prior to the date of exemption under Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 having been granted by the Central Government from applicability of this Act to the MCD vide Notification dated 22.07.2005 w.e.f. 06.08.2005. 2 This writ petition filed by the MCD (the petitioner herein) is directed against an order dated 21.07.2008 passed by the appellate authority confirming the order dated 23.11.2006 of the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.18,715/- with 10% simple interest being the amount of W.P.(C) No.9940/2009 balance gratuity admissible to the deceased husband of the respondent who admittedly had retired on reaching the age of superannuation on
31.10.1990 much prior to the MCD was exempted from the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 3 I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award of the appellate authority or that of the controlling authority that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed in limine. JULY 09, 2009 'a' S.N.AGGARWAL, J W.P.(C) No.9940/2009
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — s. 5; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 09 Jul 2009. The bench was S N AGGARWAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.