Mahender Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 19 Dec 2024
- Bench
- JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Advocate for Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for respondent No. 4 *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated
23.11.2022 (Annexure P-31) directions to respondents to grant enhanced gratuity as per Haryana Government Notification dated 03.03.2017 which was made applicable with effect from 01.01.2016.
The petitioners are former employees of Haryana Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation-respondent No. 4 (in short PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.12.19 06:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 6777 of 2023 - (cid:2)- “the Corporation”). They on attaining the age of superannuation retired after 01.01.2016. They were paid gratuity subject to ceiling of Rs. 10 lakh as at that point of time ceiling was Rs. 10 lakh. State Government by Notification dated 03.03.2017 enhanced ceiling of gratuity from Rs. 10 lakh to Rs. 20 lakh. The enhanced limit came into force with effect from
01.01.2016. The instructions of Government were adopted by almost all the Corporations owned and controlled by State Government. The Board of Directors of the Corporation in its meeting dated 20.06.2018 approved adoption of maximum limit of 20 lakh as per State Government Notification. Despite adopting Notification dated 03.03.2017 of State Government, the Corporation did not release enhanced amount of gratuity.
Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate submits that petitioners were not subjected to provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and they were governed by the Instructions issued by the State Government. They got gratuity as per said Instructions, thus, they were entitled to enhanced gratuity as per revised State Government Instructions.
Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Advocate, on being confronted with the aforesaid facts, expressed her inability to controvert the same.
From the perusal of Minutes of Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation, it is quite lucid that Board approved adoption of maximum limit of Rs. 20 lakh. The Board adopted Notification dated
03.03.2017 of State Government which was applicable with effect from
01.01.2016. The Corporation has adopted Instructions of State Government, thus, it was bound to make payment as per enhanced limit. PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.12.19 06:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 6777 of 2023 - (cid:3)-
In the wake of above discussion and findings, the instant petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed. The order dated
23.11.2022 (Annexure P-31) passed by the Corporation is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to re-calculate gratuity of the petitioners. It is made clear that the petitioners would not be entitled to interest, however, if respondent fails to make payment within two months from today, it would be liable to pay interest @ 10 % per annum from the expiry of said period. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE
19.12.2024 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: Yes PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.12.19 06:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 19 Dec 2024. The bench was JAGMOHAN BANSAL.
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.