Delhi High Court · 2009
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 03 Aug 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?NO S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) C.M. No. 9471/2009 (for exemption) in W.P.(C.) No. 10618/2009 Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C.) No. 10618/2009 and C.M. No. 9470/2009 (for stay) The question raised…
Judgment
Through: Mr. Nalin Tripathi, Addl. Standing Counsel ..... PETITIONER VERSUS $ SHRI AMAR SINGH ^ Through: None .....RESPONDENT CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO To be referred to the reporter or not?NO
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?NO S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) C.M. No. 9471/2009 (for exemption) in W.P.(C.) No. 10618/2009 Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C.) No. 10618/2009 and C.M. No. 9470/2009 (for stay) 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 26.03.2009 passed by the appellate authority W.P.(C) No. 10618/2009 confirming the order dated 19.09.2008 of the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.19,950/- with 10% simple interest being the amount of balance gratuity admissible to the respondent who admittedly had retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.12.2004 prior to the date when MCD was exempted from the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 3 In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order 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, therefore, dismissed in limine.
Stay application is also dismissed. August 03, 2009 'bsr' S.N.AGGARWAL, J W.P.(C) No. 10618/2009
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 03 Aug 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.