IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1375 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 01.04.2009 Dr. Krishan Kanta .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Ms. Jyoti Sareen, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner was working as Lecturer in Sanskrit in Hindu Kanya College, Kapurthala – respondent No.5. She retired from service on 30.4.2006. 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. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the contents of the petition. CWP No. 1375 of 2009 -2- 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. 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. 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 CWP No. 1375 of 2009 -3- required. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. April 01, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE